I don't understand this...Please explain what he meant
-
I search the net and found this article.. and I don't understand the rationale behind it.. Can someone explain what he meant to me? Specifically on Jobs and employment..How does it help Singaporeans?
http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?folder=PT&id=1758
Ever since I first mentioned that we are planning for a population of 6.5 million people, many Singaporeans have reacted with concern, some with alarm, at the thought of more people living and working in Singapore. Why we need 6.5 million people
By Mah Bow Tan
Minister for National DevelopmentEver since I first mentioned that we are planning for a population of 6.5 million people, many Singaporeans have reacted with concern, some with alarm, at the thought of more people living and working in Singapore.
They ask: Why do we need so many people? Will there be enough jobs for me or my children? Will there be enough land for housing, roads, parks? Will I be able to afford decent housing? Will the new migrants be able to fit into our society?
These are all valid concerns and questions. Singaporeans are rightly concerned about their future and their children’s future.
So is the PAP government.
It is precisely because we are concerned about the future of Singapore that we are planning well ahead of time and working hard to secure a bright future for Singaporeans.
As a schoolboy, one of the first things I learnt was that Singapore is a small country. I did not really realise how small until I became Minister for National Development, and saw how we had to fit in houses, schools, roads, reservoirs, parks, factories, offices, ports and airports etc into this tiny island we call home.
We have not let our size limit our growth and affect our quality of life. Instead, we have used it to our advantage by being nimble. Our land constraint has compelled us to plan carefully for growth and to be innovative in how we make use of limited land.
When you have less of something, you tend to make better use of it. As a result, we have enjoyed four decades of good economic growth and social development since independence, and built a modern, vibrant metropolis that is one of the most livable cities in Asia.
Now, standing at the threshold of the next 40 years, we need once again to look ahead and determine the Singapore of the future. Our population was 1.9 million back in 1965 when we became independent. Today, it is 4.5 million. As we embark on our next phase of development, our population is expected to grow further.
Do we need a larger population? Most definitely. To grow and create more and better jobs, Singapore must remain open, competitive and relevant to the global market place.
In such an economy, we need sufficient people with the right skills and experience. If we cannot get enough from our own people, we must supplement with skilled immigrants.
A larger population and greater economic activity will bring about greater buzz, vibrancy and energy, which in turn will attract more people 
and new opportunities.
Major global cities like London, New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong have populations ranging from about seven million to 12 million. So, too, newly emerging cities like Chengdu and Mumbai. These cities are abuzz with life and vibrancy.
Singapore must remain competitive as a city in which people want to work and live.
Is this a plus or minus for us? Will there be enough jobs for Singaporeans, with so many immigrants? Let’s remind ourselves that the reason we want to attract more skilled people to work here is so that we can create even more jobs.
If we do not create more jobs, then it is no use worrying about whether there are enough jobs for Singaporeans.
Foreigners and locals together can enlarge our economic pie, help it grow, create jobs, so that there is a bigger slice for everyone. Ultimately, let’s not forget that we are doing this for Singapore and Singaporeans.
How many more people can we accommodate? Will there be enough land for so many people? What population we want will depend on many factors – our physical constraints, the quality of life we wish to maintain, how ingenious and resourceful we are, how well we welcome and integrate more immigrants into our midst, and the trade-offs we are prepared to make.
Ultimately, we will have to decide on the Singapore we wish to have.
A recent review of our long-term land use and transportation plan concluded that we have enough land to cater to a population of 6.5 million, if we are creative and careful in using our limited land, if we plan for such growth now and if we invest in the necessary infrastructure.
If we look ahead, and start preparing now, we can create an exciting, dynamic, prosperous and livable first world city.
These are some of the things the government plans to do:
Housing: We will go beyond estate upgrading to rejuvenate our housing estates. We intend to comprehensively redesign some public housing estates to provide more greenery, greater convenience and comfort to the residents. And we will make sure that this new generation HDB housing will
remain affordable.Transportation: As our population grows, greater transportation needs will have to be met. Existing expressways will be upgraded, and new expressways added. We will improve our public transport system even more, including adding new rail lines. In this way, we can reduce demand for land, and minimise the environmental and traffic impact of a larger car population.
Parks, gardens and water bodies: We do not want to live in a concrete jungle. We will build new parks islandwide as well as enhance existing ones and link them up with park connectors to make them more attractive and accessible. We are well on our way to creating three signature parks at Marina Bay. We will also be making better use of our waterways and water bodies. We will transform drains and canals into beautiful, flowing streams and rivers.
New growth centres: We will develop new growth centres in areas such as Marina Bay, Orchard Road, Jurong and Paya Lebar. These new growth centres will bring more jobs and amenities, including to people living in the suburban estates.The Singapore of the future is an exciting one. I can see it in the eyes of the young people who work with me in putting these plans together. I can feel the enthusiasm in their voices as they talk about the future, their future.
But plans are only as good as the paper they are written on – unless they can be made to happen.
So long as we have a leadership that has the foresight to anticipate challenges, the determination and the political will to address them, and the ability to bring our people along to tackle these challenges together; and so long as we have a people that is willing to work hard, and work with one another, and with their leaders, we can together create a truly global city, which we can call home. -
In such an economy, we need sufficient people with the right skills and experience. If we cannot get enough from our own people, we must supplement with skilled immigrants.
Sure, but until whole fucking state flooded with aliens? Might as well go and die lah Mah Bow Tan.
A larger population and greater economic activity will bring about greater buzz, vibrancy and energy, which in turn will attract more people 
and new opportunities.Repressive rule of PAP, how on earth can there be buzz and vibrancy? Buzz and vibrancy has nothing whatsoever to do with size of population. It has to do with how the society is organised, Mah Bow Tan, don't come talk cock with me.
Major global cities like London, New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong have populations ranging from about seven million to 12 million.It is completely and totally and fully wrong to compare Singapore with those cities. Those cities are not states. I repeat mah Bow Tan, those cities are NOT states. Hopeless moron.
Looking at the arguments above, it all seems like a pile of smelly shit to me.
Total useless, worthless, rubbish from Mah Bow Tan.
This bastard must be voted out in coming elections before he destroys everything in Singapore.
People from Tampines, vote the PAP Mah Bow Tan OUT.
-
PAP's endless rubbish:
Singapore's government saw rapid population growth as a threat to living standards and political stability, as large numbers of children and young people threatened to overwhelm the schools, the medical services, and the ability of the economy to generate employment for them all. In the atmosphere of crisis after the 1965 separation from Malaysia, the government in 1966 established the Family Planning and Population Board, which was responsible for providing clinical services and public education on family planning.
Birth rates fell from 1957 to 1970, but then began to rise as women of the postwar baby boom reached child-bearing years. The government responded with policies intended to further reduce the birth rate. Abortion and voluntary sterilization were legalized in 1970. Between 1969 and 1972, a set of policies known as "population disincentives" were instituted to raise the costs of bearing third, fourth, and subsequent children.
Civil servants received no paid maternity leave for third and subsequent children; maternity hospitals charged progressively higher fees for each additional birth; and income tax deductions for all but the first two children were eliminated. Large families received no extra consideration in public housing assignments, and top priority in the competition for enrollment in the most desirable primary schools was given to only children and to children whose parents had been sterilized before the age of forty. Voluntary sterilization was rewarded by seven days of paid sick leave and by priority in the allocation of such public goods as housing and education. The policies were accompanied by publicity campaigns urging parents to "Stop at Two" and arguing that large families threatened parents' present livelihood and future security.
http://countrystudies.us/singapore/14.htm
This Mah Bow Tan is truly a hopeless case.
By the way Mah Bow Tan,
WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO GOAL 2010?
I go down on my knees and I beg you Mah Bow Tan.
I tolong tolong tolong you.
FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I read that article 3 times... still dunno how will it help singaporeans in terms of employment... If I give teacher to mark GP, maybe get F.
But on the other hand, I think it is still important to know why PAP think it will help Singaporeans.. Which I cannot comprehend in this article..
-
ever heard of this, politicians cant be trusted and they lie all the time.
-
I read that article and I find almost all the arguments raised by Mah Bow Tan to be total rubbish. It's so sickening to read such filth by goverment ministers.
After reading this piece of shit from Mah Bow Tan, I see totally no hope whatsoever for Singapore under PAP.
The other ministers don't dare to write this type of bullshit so they pushed it to Mah Bow Tan.
Mah Bow Tan why?
Why you always get the shit job in PAP?
All the filthy shit, all you must carry for PAP?
-
in the ideal world
it will work.
u get sibeh big mncs come here open shop
employ lots of sgreans.
then everyone pay high high.
all happy.
-
Do u know why electronics/electrical companies choose to relocate to other countries like China?
Its because wages are cheaper there and the same quality can be achieved, thus, the boss saved more money.
Do u know why foreigners choose to work in sg? In the manufacturing sector, these blue collared workers can earn more than in their own country doing the same job BUT at the same time, live better, and their expected salary is lower than sgreans.
When these happens, lower educated sgreans lose out to these foreigners. When MBT says the future is to get more foreign talents in, it only create a laughing joke that sg cant produce their very own talent.
MBT, if sg wants to create talent, why open up university places to people who dont even appreciate it? U can do better if u saved up those university slots for locals u know?
Sometime ppl criticises us, sgreans, that we have only ourselves to blame but with such a gov controlling us, how can we be free?
The election is the answer. It doesnt neccessary mean the opposition is your answer, But in my opinion, there should be more opposition in the parliment. And give them real power, not just a blank cheque which cannot be processed.
51% power to opposition
49% power to pap
PM from pap.
This should balance out most things?
-----------------------------------------dont flame-------------------------------------------------------
-
Yes, it's time to balance things out so that when they give absurd explanations, someone will or can stand up to question them for a real answer.
-
i always hear people saying land is scarce.
now they want more people.
so how scarce is land in singapore?
-
it's Mabok Tongue.. MIW's chief liar...
how do you know he's lying? his lips move...
what if you gag him, how do you know he's lying? he's breathing..
actually, there are only two dishonest things about him: everything he says and everything he does
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
it's Mabok Tongue.. MIW's chief liar...
how do you know he's lying? his lips move...
what if you gag him, how do you know he's lying? he's breathing..
actually, there are only two dishonest things about him: everything he says and everything he does
-
He's comparing us with Chengdu and Mumbai! I believe the land they have there is many many times bigger? I have personally been to chengdu before and even though the population is huge, the area is not as densely populated as singapore. There are very beautiful, spacious and affordable condos 30-40 mins out of the city.
Seems like their idea is simple. More population, more spending and therefore more jobs for everyone. And most importantly, the GDP is always maintained at that very high level. If their main KPI (which decides their increment, bonuses etc) is the GDP, then this 'population increase' is of paramount importance because a huge influx of foreigners, FOR SURE, would jack up the GDP.
So what's the plan after we hit 6.5 million? Surely this land can only accomodate so much? I bet they have no idea.I notice that PAP tends to indulge in subtle...not too subtle self praise. "As long as we have the leadership bla bla bla......" implying that PAP will always be there for us as visionary leaders......sometimes reading too much of this makes my hairs stand.
-
To all readers........Please remember ONE Aspect of MBT assumption when he compare global cities. He assume that Singapore is a LANDLOCK country.....
"If and When" Singapore become a "Landlock country" and NOT a "City Island state" we will entertain the ideas of increased population.
CASE Closed....
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
To all readers........Please remember ONE Aspect of MBT assumption when he compare global cities. He assume that Singapore is a LANDLOCK country.....
"If and When" Singapore become a "Landlock country" and NOT a "City Island state" we will entertain the ideas of increased population.
CASE Closed....
Maybe he knows we will reclaim land until we touch both Malaysia and Indonesia.
That's when Singapore becomes landlocked in the future.
-
or maybe he is in twilight zone....Singapore.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
To all readers........Please remember ONE Aspect of MBT assumption when he compare global cities. He assume that Singapore is a LANDLOCK country.....
"If and When" Singapore become a "Landlock country" and NOT a "City Island state" we will entertain the ideas of increased population.
CASE Closed....
Un-fucking-believable. The stupid motherfuckers have actually managed to congratulate themselves into thinking that they can defy all laws of science and geography.
-
When the crap hits the fan, all of the ministers would be retired and sipping martini's on some Carribean beach.
Not their problem.
-
while our leaders are looking at the $$ dollars perharps they should also consider.....
The possibilities of this..........
Sea level rise from anthropogenic global warming could erase some island states from the face of the Earth -- but those nations could survive even without land, say researchers.
Governments and people of lost islands could survive "in exile," build structures to mark their submerged territory, retain their status in the eyes of other states and await the day when their islands emerge again when global cooling drops sea levels.
The trouble is current international agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, don't address the issue, said international law professor Rosemary Rayfuse of the University of New South Wales in Australia. Just what to do about the possibility of nations being lost, and how to do it, is very much on the frontiers of the legal thinking.
"From the international law perspective, it's fascinating," Rayfuse told Discovery News. "Ultimately, this is going to be a very serious problem."
According to the vast majority of scientific investigations, warming waters and the melting of polar and high-elevation ice worldwide will steadily raise sea levels. This will likely drive people off islands first by spoiling the fresh groundwater, which will kill most land plants and leave no potable water for humans and their livestock.
Low-lying island states like Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives are the most prominent nations threatened in this way.