View Full Version : Reason on why do we need 6.9m?
This thread starter has voiced out an important issue:
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/showthread.php?421661-With-low-birthrate-and-no-immigration-lets-be-eaten-by-Malaysia
well the fear of being crowded out is in all the folks mind. But as long as infra picks up the capacity should be ok. look at some of the major city the population ration is ard there. Hong kong is 7M but its city planning is not so good. ( I mean the zoning of buildings. ) We should be able to do a better job.
Also if you actually look at the projection on the ages by 2060 our population would have drop to 2.6M and of that 60%-70% or more will be above 65. Which tat there there would be less working adult and business cannot substain. eventually pull out.
Other larger cities have the luxury of resources. sell trees, sell water, sell sand , sell oil or commodities. we dont.
without a working segment of population i doubt those above 65 can retire properly . and those working can find jobs that substain.
Then wat abt the generation after? become smaller 1M? I think eventually we go back to become a village.
Some say fxxk it let it be . I don't care. I just don't want to see foreigners on my land! but remember your grand parents are also actually foreigners when they came here in the early 1900s. Only the indigenous malays belongs here.
Also have to spare some thoughts to the later generation the burden they have to carry supporting a generation of old people through higher taxation.
ITs a slippery slop not to plan for a future and just live for the moment. Its plain selfish.
eventually maybe with left 1M population we have to go knock the doors of malaysia beg to be let back in. I am sure many Anwar will want to Fxxk all ur backside.
Yes i agree with u, minority.
So many foreigners, so much construction, so little space, so expensive daily necessities+house+car, so competitive school+workplace, so little time for family and friends...I think we can all survive in 2030 with 7 mil people but quality of life and happiness index will be all the way down.
Singapore has plenty of land still
Punggol, commonwealth, pontong pasir area just to name a few
7M will work, we don't have hilly terrains like HK
I agree with the other article, people are objecting due to their recent experience in the train and so on... And not thinking logically.
The reason stated by CNA TS is damn lame. Blardy hell you think those foreign trash will defend our country when attacked? KNN use your bird brain to think also know they will AWOR lar. TS must be a trash himself justifying his importance.
phantom_opera
31-01-13, 06:58
the reason is simple ... maintain baby boomers ... otherwise our old folks ratio will rise from 9% to 20% ... and PAP will need to everyday gives angpao to these voters, not to mention a stagnant economy like japan
:tongue3:
i support the theory of import to support our old age. someone mentioned MLM scheme, we sgpreans are the uplines. totally great concept there.
i have a question: when this 6.9m eventually become older, do we need to have 2 x 6.9m to support THEIR aging?
TFR, ageing population is a red herring.
i was looking at the report, so many pages on citizen, ageing, TFR, demographics etc, like the government very concerned about the citizens.
if you read section 2.25, and chart 2.7 of the report, we only need to import 25k citizens a year to maintain the population.
and yet why do we need to increase 1 million non-residents by 2030?
so little pages devoted to the increase 1 million. only section 4.4, 4.5, 4.6
to broaden tax base.
haha, i must applaud the government, damn smart to use ageing population, TFR as a cover to import more non-residents to grow the GDP.
TFR, ageing population is a red herring.
i was looking at the report, so many pages on citizen, ageing, TFR, demographics etc, like the government very concerned about the citizens.
if you read section 2.25, and chart 2.7 of the report, we only need to import 25k citizens a year to maintain the population.
and yet why do we need to increase 1 million non-residents by 2030?
so little pages devoted to the increase 1 million. only section 4.4, 4.5, 4.6
to broaden tax base.
haha, i must applaud the government, damn smart to use ageing population, TFR as a cover to import more non-residents to grow the GDP.
I'm really wondering where the returns of our investments at GIC and Temasek all go into? I'm actually quite worried about this.
singapore is trying to replicate china..
china have the land and resources to accomodate another double digit million people.. they can just cancel the one child policy and their people will start pop out babies..
singapore?
want to copy them too.. increase population by IMPORTING foreigners!
I'm really wondering where the returns of our investments at GIC and Temasek all go into? I'm actually quite worried about this.
You are right to worry.
do you know us govt, euro govts are raiding their pension schemes.
read zerohedge.com
i think krugman is right about singapore growth.
http://media.ft.com/cms/b8268ffe-7572-11db-aea1-0000779e2340.pdf
now that full employment rate, how to marshall additional human resources to grow the economy except to import more?
singapore is trying to replicate china..
china have the land and resources to accomodate another double digit million people.. they can just cancel the one child policy and their people will start pop out babies..
singapore?
want to copy them too.. increase population by IMPORTING foreigners!
you are very much wrong about china.
even if they cancel the 1 child policy, people are used to the mindset. only the very rich can afford. high living costs in china now. even those who can have 2, like in villages, farms etc, also have 1 child only.
just like singapore cancel "the stop at 2 program", now how many singaporeans give birth >2 ? now TFR 1.2
TFR, ageing population is a red herring.
i was looking at the report, so many pages on citizen, ageing, TFR, demographics etc, like the government very concerned about the citizens.
if you read section 2.25, and chart 2.7 of the report, we only need to import 25k citizens a year to maintain the population.
and yet why do we need to increase 1 million non-residents by 2030?
so little pages devoted to the increase 1 million. only section 4.4, 4.5, 4.6
to broaden tax base.
haha, i must applaud the government, damn smart to use ageing population, TFR as a cover to import more non-residents to grow the GDP.
i agree with you.
you are very much wrong about china.
even if they cancel the 1 child policy, people are used to the mindset. only the very rich can afford. high living costs in china now. even those who can have 2, like in villages, farms etc, also have 1 child only.
just like singapore cancel "the stop at 2 program", now how many singaporeans give birth >2 ? now TFR 1.2
why singaporean don't dare to pop babies now is due to high cost of living here..
china? things are still pretty affordable there..eg .food and necessities
why singaporean don't dare to pop babies now is due to high cost of living here..
china? things are still pretty affordable there..
not high cost of living. lifestyle choices. generally, even the rich ones in singapore are not having many babies. brown skin families are having more babies inspite of them being poorer than yellow skin families, in malaysia, in singapore, in indonesia with the the rich yellow skin-poor brown skin gap widest in indonesia.
and things are not that affordable, based on their salary.
i think krugman is right about singapore growth.
http://media.ft.com/cms/b8268ffe-7572-11db-aea1-0000779e2340.pdf
now that full employment rate, how to marshall additional human resources to grow the economy except to import more?
that article was written in 1994. not sure if the dynamics may be different now.
but if we import more (inputs), and do not increase producitivity (outputs), we will just be using the same growth model that we used to have. no diff. and it will not be sustainable.
what we need is to increase the productivity, such that output > input, or as the article mentioned, "growth accounting".
good quality input is the key? capital investments? technological advances?
i support the theory of import to support our old age. someone mentioned MLM scheme, we sgpreans are the uplines. totally great concept there.
i have a question: when this 6.9m eventually become older, do we need to have 2 x 6.9m to support THEIR aging?
looking at 2060 the stark truth is core singaporean will reduce. the Y generation will abt gone.. so the so call original singaporean like it or not will be less coz we are not replacing ourselves with a 1.2 TFR.
If they put in the nos. of beyond 2060 the current core singapore wont even like the ratio.
well the 6.9M are made up of 2.5M of transient foreigners which can be cycled . and the core singaporean + new SC + PR would have some expirary.. so dont expect 6.9 X 2.
why singaporean don't dare to pop babies now is due to high cost of living here..
china? things are still pretty affordable there..eg .food and necessities
That is not just abt $. its life style choices. With more mobility more want to LIVE n focus own career then have kids. but Biological clocks dont wait.
TFR, ageing population is a red herring.
i was looking at the report, so many pages on citizen, ageing, TFR, demographics etc, like the government very concerned about the citizens.
if you read section 2.25, and chart 2.7 of the report, we only need to import 25k citizens a year to maintain the population.
and yet why do we need to increase 1 million non-residents by 2030?
so little pages devoted to the increase 1 million. only section 4.4, 4.5, 4.6
to broaden tax base.
haha, i must applaud the government, damn smart to use ageing population, TFR as a cover to import more non-residents to grow the GDP.
without a working population n less TAX how u want to fund the greying population health care and infra? Dont be naive we are not living on gold or oil island.
Without enough TAX to fund the national infra and programs. Your kids will be paying more tax. talk abt quality of life then?
The reason stated by CNA TS is damn lame. Blardy hell you think those foreign trash will defend our country when attacked? KNN use your bird brain to think also know they will AWOR lar. TS must be a trash himself justifying his importance.
the new citizen will have to integrate. The same question was ask when ur grandfather generation is here and when WWII started. when u are here ur roots are growing here. ur assest are here. U will have to fight to defend it.
You have to ask urself even today Singaporean have it cross some of the folks mind if they have a recall for war will we have AWOL too? There are some who say they will not go back and take the 1st flight out. And they are singaporeans.
You have to ask urself even today Singaporean have it cross some of the folks mind if they have a recall for war will we have AWOL too? There are some who say they will not go back and take the 1st flight out. And they are singaporeans.
it is the sense of nationality. with more and more singaporeans working overseas, disillutioned with foreigners, PAP, etc... where is the sense of nationality? ECONOMICS, GDP is ingrained in our culture. and who created this? if Vit M is the food for survival, who cares about the survival of the nation?
i am not for or against any policy or whatever. i am just stating the facts here.
without a working population n less TAX how u want to fund the greying population health care and infra? Dont be naive we are not living on gold or oil island.
Without enough TAX to fund the national infra and programs. Your kids will be paying more tax. talk abt quality of life then?
you are missing the point.
i said TFR, demographics, ageing population is a red herring. if you see in white paper, they only give demographic profile for citizens if no immigration, chart 1.4
now with immigration of new citizens, they cannot show something similar like chart 1.4 with different immigration scenarios? (like chart 2.7) what is the demographic profile at 2030 with different immigration scenarios.
government is not interested in demographics, they are interested in tax base. however they are using demographics as a cover.
government is not interested in demographics, they are interested in tax base. however they are using demographics as a cover.
tax base in itself is not wrong, because that is used to fund social programs which benefit singaporeans more.
question here is who gets more benefits. million dollar ministers or otherwise.
without a working population n less TAX how u want to fund the greying population health care and infra? Dont be naive we are not living on gold or oil island.
Without enough TAX to fund the national infra and programs. Your kids will be paying more tax. talk abt quality of life then?
eh, please lah. we are spending less than 4% of GDP on healthcare, but close to 30% on defense.
you speak as if we are running out of money. if so, just cut 3% from defense and transfer it to healthcare.
:doh: :doh: do we need to up our tax base to 7mil? there are other ways to cough up with the money
Well, this guy who used to be SG Chief Statistician thinks 8 million no problem....mebbe over time, the number will start creeping up.
Prepare for upper limit in population planning
Dr Paul Cheung, Director of Statistics Division, United Nations
Posted on Oct 8, 2012 10:21 AM Updated: Oct 8, 2012 11:53 AM
ByPhua Mei Pin (http://www.singapolitics.sg/author/phua-mei-pin)
Singapore can, if it wants, accommodate eight million people.
That is Dr Cheung's belief.
But whether it wants to hit even six million is a "political matter" up for negotiation between the Government and the people, he makes clear.
The Hong Kong-born Singaporean, 59, spent close to 30 years monitoring the interplay between Singapore's population and economic growth, including 14 years as the Government's chief statistician.
He draws a sharp distinction between a population target and a planning parameter.
"We must always plan for the upper limit. We have to be creative and have in mind urban infrastructure for a much larger population," Dr Cheung says.
Otherwise, one ends up with "lousy planning". One example of that is the older MRT lines. They were planned for a population of four million. Six carriages per train were deemed sufficient then, in turn, dictating station designs for six-car trains.
Today, they are a limiting factor, preventing the adding of more carriages to each train to cater to higher traffic. The only option is to run more trains per hour, which increases the strain on the rail system, he says.
Another reason to plan for a larger number is that population growth has its own momentum, as shown by population figures published just last week, he says.
They showed that foreign worker numbers went up by 100,000 in the 12 months to June, and new immigrants by about 45,000 last year, in spite of government efforts to tighten and slow both inflows.
But should Singapore turn off the foreigner tap altogether, it risks hurting the economy,
Dr Cheung says. For example, if the foreigner-dependent maritime industry is hurt by a lack of labour, it will have a knock-on effect on sectors such as logistics, bunking, cruise and oil rig.
"These economic drivers may disappear overnight. Once you lose these, you'll never get them back again because there are so many other countries competing for that position," he says, adding that in the longer term, Singapore needs to restructure its economy and raise productivity.
Back in the 1990s, Singaporeans worried about housing four million people on this island. But, thanks to the resulting economic growth, "now we are beyond four million, and I don't think quality of life has suffered". "Singaporeans by and large have very good housing and urban life," he adds.
However, he acknowledges that ground conditions this time round are different from those 22 years ago. He counts as genuine problems overstrained public transport infrastructure, too many foreign workers and a perception among some Singaporeans that the Government favours foreigners.
If the decision is to stop before six million, or to take a longer time to approach it, he says: "That's fine. Then we can have slower growth and control the population more."
you are missing the point.
i said TFR, demographics, ageing population is a red herring. if you see in white paper, they only give demographic profile for citizens if no immigration, chart 1.4
now with immigration of new citizens, they cannot show something similar like chart 1.4 with different immigration scenarios? (like chart 2.7) what is the demographic profile at 2030 with different immigration scenarios.
government is not interested in demographics, they are interested in tax base. however they are using demographics as a cover.
not only for tax base. if we extrapolate the extent of sentiments swung against the ruling party in the latest by-election, they would lose a whole lot of GRCs and SMCs.
just like what Mahatir is being accused of now - giving citizenships to Sabah-ians to bolster support for BN. who will these new SCs vote for likely? your guess is as good as mine
Well, this guy who used to be SG Chief Statistician thinks 8 million no problem....mebbe over time, the number will start creeping up.
as mentioned before by many,
http://www.ura.gov.sg/conceptplan2001/index.html
The Concept Plan 2001 maps out our vision for the next 40 to 50 years. It is based on a population scenario of 5.5 million.
not only for tax base. if we extrapolate the extent of sentiments swung against the ruling party in the latest by-election, they would lose a whole lot of GRCs and SMCs.
just like what Mahatir is being accused of now - giving citizenships to Sabah-ians to bolster support for BN. who will these new SCs vote for likely? your guess is as good as mine
mahatir is because sabah, sarawak last time is non-majorities malay, muslim.
so to bring them in line he give citizenships.
now what if PAP has not embark on increasing the population, would there be so many overcrowding etc.
however what will happen to "more good years"?
think PAP main failure is to plan for infrastructure.
as mentioned before by many,
http://www.ura.gov.sg/conceptplan2001/index.html
The Concept Plan 2001 maps out our vision for the next 40 to 50 years. It is based on a population scenario of 5.5 million.
at this rate we are going, i won't be surprise come 2016 and assuming PAP is still in power, the magical number of 10mil will be flashed out.
we are going to be like NY, TKY, LND (even then, NY and LND are only 8mil)
it is the sense of nationality. with more and more singaporeans working overseas, disillutioned with foreigners, PAP, etc... where is the sense of nationality? ECONOMICS, GDP is ingrained in our culture. and who created this? if Vit M is the food for survival, who cares about the survival of the nation?
i am not for or against any policy or whatever. i am just stating the facts here.
Well its a sense of fear I guess. thus the strong nation bonding is important. Also those are the NS times speak. As we worked and have assets and are more rooted the mind set changes coz u have more to loose if u run. U stay to fight for what u have invested time here.
6.9 million is not the real target...just that they don't want you all to be scare off !
7.5million is the real target govt want to hit!
you are missing the point.
i said TFR, demographics, ageing population is a red herring. if you see in white paper, they only give demographic profile for citizens if no immigration, chart 1.4
now with immigration of new citizens, they cannot show something similar like chart 1.4 with different immigration scenarios? (like chart 2.7) what is the demographic profile at 2030 with different immigration scenarios.
government is not interested in demographics, they are interested in tax base. however they are using demographics as a cover.
u are missing my pt. its intertwine.. I am saying without a working population there is no tax base. which is right to say the government is interested in that. Coz without tax there is nothing to fund infra and welfare programs. which is much needed with a high % of grey population.
look at US California.. over spending and hitting a spending limit. all cilvil service schemes will be shut down if no funding.
same scenario.
not only for tax base. if we extrapolate the extent of sentiments swung against the ruling party in the latest by-election, they would lose a whole lot of GRCs and SMCs.
just like what Mahatir is being accused of now - giving citizenships to Sabah-ians to bolster support for BN. who will these new SCs vote for likely? your guess is as good as mine
sad to see so many narrow minded folks here. I hope u have no kids or children. coz they will have to bare the burden of ur short sightless.
Regulators
31-01-13, 11:02
Do you think income tax is the only tax the government collects? don't be naive.
u are missing my pt. its intertwine.. I am saying without a working population there is no tax base. which is right to say the government is interested in that. Coz without tax there is nothing to fund infra and welfare programs. which is much needed with a high % of grey population.
look at US California.. over spending and hitting a spending limit. all cilvil service schemes will be shut down if no funding.
same scenario.
Do you think income tax is the only tax the government collects? don't be naive.
then enlighten us then..
then enlighten us then..
indirect tax is - CPF:o
Regulators
31-01-13, 11:59
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page_ektid5676.aspx
this is not considering revenue collected by ura, lta, etc.
then enlighten us then..
indirect tax is - CPF:o
u can empty it to buy a place and collect rent.
Tax u pay and cannot get back.
CPF u can still utilized. they pay u interest. how is that a TAX.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page_ektid5676.aspx
this is not considering revenue collected by ura, lta, etc.
yes those are consumption tax.. I rather they have consumption tax than a 1 size fit all 30% TAX for everyone across the segment.
dont want to pay u can dont consume.
then enlighten us then..
wah piang, in a condo forum....LAND SALES?!! :doh:
wah piang, in a condo forum....LAND SALES?!! :doh:
u expect it to be free? wah piang!!!!! grow a brian.
Well its a sense of fear I guess. thus the strong nation bonding is important. Also those are the NS times speak. As we worked and have assets and are more rooted the mind set changes coz u have more to loose if u run. U stay to fight for what u have invested time here.
i think this is the very reason why KBW is opening up new HDB market to singles. to root the singles b4 they run road since they are not rooted. but anyway this is one new topic by itself to talk about.
u expect it to be free? wah piang!!!!! grow a brian.
hare-brained, this is in response to your question asking what other sources of income the govt has besides income tax.
:banghead: :banghead:
oh ya, i forgot you can't really follow threads of discussions
wah why minority and eng loggerhead?
anyway this simple calculation, posted previously
if need additional 700k homes, and conservative 20% is for private condo.
700.000 x 20% x 1000sf x 700psf = 98billion
i think higher than 20% will be private since the rise in citizen and pr do not justify building 560.000 homes
2012 june: 3.82mil citizens and pr
2030 4.4mil citizens and pr
an increase in 580k citizens and pr does not justify an increase in 560k HDB flats.
so if increase by 580k residents, then probably need 290k HDB flats.
so balance is 700k - 290k = 410k units private housing?
revenue from land sales for private housing 410k units x 1000sf each unit x 700psf (from land sales) = 287 billion ?
plus stamp duty, 410k x 1000 x 1200psf 3% = 14.8bil.
wah why minority and eng loggerhead?
anyway this simple calculation, posted previously
if need additional 700k homes, and conservative 20% is for private condo.
700.000 x 20% x 1000sf x 700psf = 98billion
i think higher than 20% will be private since the rise in citizen and pr do not justify building 560.000 homes
2012 june: 3.82mil citizens and pr
2030 4.4mil citizens and pr
an increase in 580k citizens and pr does not justify an increase in 560k HDB flats.
so if increase by 580k residents, then probably need 290k HDB flats.
so balance is 700k - 290k = 410k units private housing?
revenue from land sales for private housing 410k units x 1000sf each unit x 700psf (from land sales) = 287 billion ?
plus stamp duty, 410k x 1000 x 1200psf 3% = 14.8bil.
2030 - 7m pop
2012 - 5.3m pop
Diff - 1.7m
Assuming 3 to 4 persons housed in one home, it gives us 400k to 560k homes. However, this method of calculation does not take into account singles living in studios, MMs, etc.
2030 - 7m pop
2012 - 5.3m pop
Diff - 1.7m
Assuming 3 to 4 persons housed in one home, it gives us 400k to 560k homes. However, this method of calculation does not take into account singles living in studios, MMs, etc.
white paper mention 700k needed.
i take a look at TFR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
black is the future.
green is the future.
no wonder israel resort to this measure
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/israel_admits_ethiopian_jewish_immigrants_were_given_birth_control_shots/
white paper mention 700k needed.
that's why i stated my method of calculation does not take into account singles living in studios, MMs, etc. if so, the assumption of 3 persons to a house is not valid but may be lower. let's stretch it to, perhaps, 600k.
that leaves us a shortfall of 100k of homes. lots of possible scenarios,
1. buffer stock, but do we need that much buffer? cost to govt and public coffers?
2. the extent of singles living in studio, MM is even greater than expected = i.e. ban on building MMs will be relaxed eventually
3. population of 7mil is not the end-state, govt is looking beyond 7mil liao
singles allowed to buy new hdb flats also = public MM
hare-brained, this is in response to your question asking what other sources of income the govt has besides income tax.
:banghead: :banghead:
oh ya, i forgot you can't really follow threads of discussions
how to follow discussion with some one who have no brain? :eek: :eek: :eek: :doh: :doh: :doh:
One thing I do not understand, practically every developed country out there is facing a greying population with a declining birth rate but I hardly hear of these countries pursuing an aggressive immigration policy to sustain growth.
Singapore know something that the rest of the world don't? :doh:
One thing I do not understand, practically every developed country out there is facing a greying population with a declining birth rate but I hardly hear of these countries pursuing an aggressive immigration policy to sustain growth.
Singapore know something that the rest of the world don't? :doh:
Coz they either have oil like brunei. or have land or sand to sell or commodity. or a big brother to kao like hong kong.
we dont.
phantom_opera
31-01-13, 17:30
One thing I do not understand, practically every developed country out there is facing a greying population with a declining birth rate but I hardly hear of these countries pursuing an aggressive immigration policy to sustain growth.
Singapore know something that the rest of the world don't? :doh:
Because we must sustain high property prices ... imagine if HDB cost 100k, condo 300k then many people will not be committed to Singapore (as their asset are overseas) ... taking in more baby boomers are very easy way to manipulate property prices (and of course high land value)
Hong Kong will be our future ... 2000psf at Pasir Ris is the future
:p
Because we must sustain high property prices ... imagine if HDB cost 100k, condo 300k then many people will not be committed to Singapore (as their asset are overseas) ... taking in more baby boomers are very easy way to manipulate property prices (and of course high land value)
Hong Kong will be our future ... 2000psf at Pasir Ris is the future
:p
Sounds suspiciously like a Ponzi scheme! Last one in kena! :p
Coz they either have oil like brunei. or have land or sand to sell or commodity. or a big brother to kao like hong kong.
we dont.
Hmmm. Then it will be interesting to see how countries like Taiwan and South Korea manages it then.
phantom_opera
31-01-13, 17:45
Actually Singapore may hit lower & lower fertility rate over the next 10y so we may end up with even more immigrants
When u have to fork out 100k for COE or 500k for BTO ... you are denied basic quality of life .. who wants to produce or even get married if that is the case
Actually Singapore may hit lower & lower fertility rate over the next 10y so we may end up with even more immigrants
When u have to fork out 100k for COE or 500k for BTO ... you are denied basic quality of life .. who wants to produce or even get married if that is the case
This fertility rate excuse is just a smoke screen. I can almost assure you that even if every couple is having 4 kids, we will still be importing people.
phantom_opera
31-01-13, 17:50
This fertility rate excuse is just a smoke screen. I can almost assure you that even if every couple is having 4 kids, we will still be importing people.
if 20% are lkk retirees all vote against PAP ... jialat
so must import another 20% SC new voters to counter them lol :rolleyes:
if 20% are lkk retirees all vote against PAP ... jialat
so must import another 20% SC new voters to counter them lol :rolleyes:
Shhhh. Importing foreign talent is to sustain economic growth not a political legacy! :D
i support the theory of import to support our old age. someone mentioned MLM scheme, we sgpreans are the uplines. totally great concept there.
i have a question: when this 6.9m eventually become older, do we need to have 2 x 6.9m to support THEIR aging?
You should read this article http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321
"Ponzi demography" is unsustainable and there will be dire consequences for the average native citizens and their kids' generation.
Hole in Hong Kong's population figures revealed
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1140586/hole-hong-kongs-population-figures-revealed?utm_source=edm&utm_medium=edm&utm_content=20130201&utm_campaign=scmp_today
dubai, hongkong and finally singapore..
objective of running a country (business) is revenue! no mercy! :hell-hath-no-fury:
it's all about business..
as an individual, you must find your objective of living too!
:cheers5:
it's a clear grab for talents and brains, no debate to that.
but is this what the nation wants? in this case, we need to define nation - the citizens or govt?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.