Property price is coming down fast

[Rysk]

look bro ... you are of course the master of your own opinions and you are rightfully entitled to them .... just dun keep emphasizing on doom and gloom all by yourself when no one is even commenting and you keep on and on with huge red capital letters?

I mean come one, talk about loving to talk to oneself just got to another whole new level when I see your posts

As usual, TWIST & TURN cum DIVERT ATTENTION cum MISSED THE BOAT EXPERT MR DAVID LIM (aka MR B) cannot tahan paying rental anymore... Moreover now is his 5th year into the rental market since the start of sghouse in 2008...
All the Useless Followers had gone MIA.. except DAVID LIM (aka MR B) continue with his copy & paste job in his own thread..
http://www.sg-house.com/classifieds/...-property.html

With the BIG font & speed of copy & paste of bad news over here.. you should realized that.. he's still waiting & waiting & waiting & still waiting for pty price to crash

[samuelk]

actually mr b made some valid cut and paste. Just that most came and went.

if you were to look at those events, it would seem that there were quite well anticipated and hence averted a crisis.

I would have worried on cm6. I had big worries on cm7. Infact the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling was the biggest worry.

so what does that say about the market as a whole. Still remarkable resilient.

but there can only be so much counter measure. Worrying is just part of due dilligence. At least if someone were to read and buy, he /. She would have gone in with the eyes open.

but in general, those that were on the borderline of buying may have missed a number of deals and some oppertunity had also close due to the fear of widely available news been reinforce.

I can only hope that the worst does not happen as it is not something to wish upon to achieve someone's aim of a good bargain.

its like wishing a big brand car company to go bust so that you can get a good discount from the car. Yet when that happens a new found flaw starts to appear such as a better car is around the corner and this an outgoing model and coe is too high .... Blah blah blah.

I wonder with so many measures in place, how many first time time buyer that there are low hanging fruits for the pickings or, is there more leeway waiting to be gotten. Or wait til. 2015?.

one can only hope that we can timed the market well enough with the riight balance of spotting that golden oppertunity as well as well as the courage to move in for the purchase.

[phantom_opera]

From dow at 7k shout until dow at 14k, from everybody can buy till only rich can buy.. Just Change the thread title to prop price up for 4y in a row la, mr b when will prop 50pc down? Don't dare to make a call?

[Rysk]

From dow at 7k shout until dow at 14k, from everybody can buy till only rich can buy.. Just Change the thread title to prop price up for 4y in a row la, mr b when will prop 50pc down? Don't dare to make a call?

MR B (aka DAVID LIM) from sghouse talked BIG BIG like expert what sh!t ".. we will see the correction soon" in 2008 when Luxus Hills 1.6-mio.. at ".. sky-high prices"..

Talking for 4-yrs in a row till Luxus Hills 3.0-mio..

http://www.sg-house.com/classifieds/...-property.html
Believe it or not, Singapore is mature market and we will see the correction soon. The current sky-high prices make Spore less competitive in attracting foreigners on which our economy heavily relies. What should government do to attract more talents? You got the answer.

[seletar]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/11...-paper-debate/

Statistics on the Population White Paper debate

February 11th, 2013


I refer to the article “Care for lower-income in times of slowdown: Chan Chun Sing” (Channel NewsAsia, Feb 8).

Slow-down in foreign labour?

It states that “the White Paper has proposed to slow down the intake of foreign labour and new citizens, not just bringing in fewer immigrants each year, but allowing more time for adjustment.”

Since The growth in foreign employment was 70,400 in 2012, and The growth rate of non-residents in the total labour force from 2011 to 2012 was 7.4 per cent, which is still much higher than that for residents at 1.9 per cent, how can we say that “the White Paper has proposed to slow down the intake of foreign labour” when the White Paper says that the current 1.49 million foreigners is projected to grow by up to 1.9 million in just seven years ‘ time?

Moreover, how can the increase in the intake of permanent residents (PRs) from 27,521
in 2011, to 30,000 a year in the future be a slow-down?


Slow-down in new citizens?

Also, how can we say that “the White Paper has proposed to slow down the intake of new citizens”, when there were only 15,777 new citizens in 2011 versus the White Paper’s projection of up to 25,000 new citizens a year in the future?


Slower growth means negative real income growth for low-income?

As to “”Growth will give us a better chance to help people to improve their lives over time. Growing slower does not mean we will have a more equal society. In fact if we grow below a certain rate, the low-income of our society actually suffers negative income growth in real terms”, how do we explain the fact that despite our growth focused strategies over the last decade, the 20th percentile of workers only had a real gross wage growth of 0.1 per cent per annum in the last decade?


Helping lower-income?

With regard to “Mr Chan also urged Singaporeans to care for the lower income groups during times of a slowdown in growth or no growth.

Mr Chan elaborated: “We must imbue in our more successful ones the sense of responsibility to help the weaker ones in society. We must agree as a society that those who have the least must be given more help”, since the primary reason given for raising the GST was to help the poor, let’s look at what we are doing in this regard.


ComCare – only $104m

The sum allocated to the ComCare and Social Support Programme was only $104 million, and only $25 million for the Elderly and Disability Programme.

So, this $104 million – according to the CDCs’ annual report for FY2011, the number of applications for financial assistance was 72,700 for the whole year from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 – had to be distributed to so many needy families who were successful in their applications. How much on the average did each family get?


People’s Association – $338m

The second largest component of expenditure in the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYSS) was $338 million for the operating expenditure of the People’s Association (PA).




More help for lower-income in 2007?

When the GST rate was raised from 5% to 7% in July 2007, a household in the bottom 20% had to pay additional GST of $370 per year, but received an offset package of $910 per year, in addition to permanent benefits of $1,000 per year. (“Budget debate round-up speech“, Mar 2, 2011)


Less help now?

So, let’s see how much less lower-income families will get now.

It’s GST Cash of $250 and GST U-Save Rebate of $260 (1 and 2-room HDB) and no Medisave top-up if there are no family members age 65 and above.

Also, in the past, Medisave top-ups were given to those age 55 and above. So, why is the age now increased to 65 and above?

So, are lower-income families effectively getting much less now under the GST Voucher scheme, compared to the previous GST Offset Package?


Leong Sze Hian

Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...abour-20130213

Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 13, 2013

Don't be too reliant on cheap foreign labour


IT APPEARS to me that National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan's planning strategy relies too much on the availability of cheap foreign construction workers ("Major shift in planning strategy: Khaw"; last Thursday).

Responding to the Workers' Party call to freeze the number of foreign workers, he was quoted as saying: "My housing plan will be badly affected! I will not be able to deliver the new flats as promised to 200,000 families."

Singapore cannot be forever reliant on cheap foreign labour. What happens if Singapore is no longer a preferred destination for them?

Already, Malaysian, Thai and Chinese construction workers are becoming increasingly hard to recruit. It would not be too long before the same happens with the Indian and Bangladeshi workers.

Has it occurred to the Government that the Indian and Bangladeshi governments may, for their own national interest, forbid their citizens from seeking employment in Singapore? Remember that other countries like the Philippines and Indonesia have done so in the past.

May I suggest that the Government look at how Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Australia are able to build their cities without being overly reliant on foreign workers.

A strategy based solely on the import of cheap foreign labour is seriously flawed and unsustainable.

Soh Oon Teck

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...abour-20130213

Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 13, 2013

Businesses addicted to quick-fix drug of foreign labour


I CANNOT agree more with MP Inderjit Singh, whose call to take a break from the relentless drive for growth and fix problems first was echoed by some of his party members ("Delay population growth for 5 years: MP"; last Wednesday).

Bear in mind that corporate managers do not make the rules. The Government makes the rules and the managers operate within them to produce the best outcomes for their own performance appraisals and resultant bonuses.

For example, it takes at least two years to turn an apprentice into a competent technician. Many local apprentices are school dropouts. They are accepted for training by big corporations at the age of 16. Just when they become productive, they get called up for national service. After that, some may not return to the employers who invested in their training.

However, so-called engineers from India, Pakistan and the Philippines may have qualifications not recognised in Singapore. But they speak English, comprehend technical manuals and are more than capable of understanding and doing the jobs of skilled technicians. And they work for the same salaries as what technicians get.

At higher grades, they could even be hired more competitively, since they neither suffer Central Provident Fund deductions nor receive CPF contributions.

If the employment of these foreigners were banned, local managers would have no choice but to train and upgrade the skills of our own citizens.

But this takes time. Managers are assessed every year. Their bonuses and promotions depend on the productivity and profitability of their divisions for that year. Why should they handicap themselves with local trainees who do not produce immediate results, when they can get foreigners who hit the ground running?

The use of foreign workers is a quick-fix drug to which Singapore businesses have become addicted. When threatened with withdrawal, businessmen complain and say that they have to close down. There is no doubt that the restructuring of various businesses will be as painful. As in the case of curing drug addicts, some may not survive.

But unless the Government lives up to its constant claims of being able to make hard decisions, and forces Singapore businesses to stand principally on the strengths of its native sons, the nation we grew up to know may not survive.

Lee Chiu San

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...ation-20130213

Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 13, 2013

Singapore needs to boost productivity, not population


I QUESTION the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises' call for a higher inflow of low-end foreign workers ("Call to relook curbs on foreign worker inflow"; Feb 4).

Every morning, five foreign workers take approximately two hours to sweep the HDB carpark near my house. Why is there a need for so many foreign workers to do a job that one person can do?

This is not an exceptional case.

In the United States, two staff members at a Starbucks outlet can take customers' orders faster than three to five of their counterparts in Singapore.

Formal studies are even more damning: Singapore's construction industry productivity has been estimated to be half that of Australia's and one-third that of Japan's ("What ails Singapore's building industry?"; March 13, 2010). And Singapore's construction productivity rose an anaemic 0.7 per cent annually from 2000 to 2010.

Since Singapore, Australia and Japan all have access to the same technology, the difference in productivity levels appears to be a case of Singapore's construction sector utilising its labour and capital inputs in an inefficient manner.

At five-star hotels here, foreign wait staff tell me and visiting foreign colleagues that they do not serve Irish coffee, screwdrivers or pina coladas. We had to hunt for a Singaporean bartender to get a properly mixed drink.

At a wedding hosted at a five-star hotel, foreign wait staff poured white wine into guests' glasses that still had red wine in them.

I do not recall such incidents happening when these same hotels employed Singaporean wait staff.

There are many cases where replacing Singaporean workers with foreign staff made both the enterprise, and Singapore itself, less economically efficient. Businesses appear to be so fixated on low wages that many hire foreign staff who are less competent than locals.

Clearly, this 19th century practice of importing cheap, inefficient labour is not working. Singapore needs to boost its productivity, not its population.

Eric J. Brooks

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...ccess-20130213

Straits Times forum
Published on Feb 13, 2013

PMET job not the only path to success


THE debate on the Population White Paper has largely revolved around overcrowding, infrastructure and the influx of foreigners. I am troubled by the projection that two-thirds of citizens will be professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) by 2030, and that we will increase our reliance on foreign workers to take up lower-skilled jobs.

Many Singaporeans think that some types of work are beneath them. The pay in these jobs is so low that it is difficult for workers to eke out a decent livelihood. Yet many of these jobs are in essential services like health care, construction and cleaning.

Depending on foreign workers to fill these roles can only be a temporary solution that is not sustainable.

The strong Singaporean core we are building must be self-reliant. Singaporeans must be able to make a decent living from work that matches their aptitude and ability. All work done must be valued fairly, and this must be reflected not only in wages, but also in the removal of the perceived social stigma.

Costs will go up, but the result is a more resilient Singaporean core that is rooted in reality.

The Government must help all Singaporeans achieve their dreams and aspirations, and understand that a PMET job is not the only way to get there.

In many cases, it is not even the best way.

The assertion that foreign workers serve as a buffer for economic uncertainty is also flawed. In an economic downturn, many PMET jobs in banking, finance and manufacturing are at greater risk than those in essential services like health care and cleaning.

If these jobs continue to be shunned by residents, and if remuneration continues to be artificially suppressed by a reliance on cheap foreign labour, Singapore may find itself in an unsustainable situation.

Weaning ourselves off cheap foreign labour will not be a quick and easy process, but it is a necessary step towards a sustainable population and dynamic Singapore.

Aaron Lee Kwang Yang

[seletar]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/13...d-destination/

White Paper Passed : Roadmap to an unwanted destination

February 13th, 2013


Happy Lunar New Year.

I’m sure many of you had this experience when you visited friends and relatives during this week – a large group of people gather to talk about various issues, catch up on each others’ lives and at some point someone brings up the population white paper and the torrent of negative views about it pours out and keep going until someone reminds everyone else that it is Chinese New Year and we shouldn’t be so angry.

I haven’t met anyone who is positive about the White Paper. Never in my life have I seen such an overwhelmingly negative reaction to a govt proposal. Every single opposition MP in parliament voted against it and all NMPs, except Eugene Tan who abstained, voted against it.

But he urged the public to not just understand the details of the White Paper but also the government’s aim in putting it out, which is “to help Singaporeans have a better life for the future in the best way possible”
- Straits Times Report[Link]

“Perhaps now right-minded Singaporeans might get over that emotional hump and the 6.9 million figure and take the White Paper at face value for what it is trying to do”
- Straits Times Report [Link]

The MSM media urges Singaporeans to get over their “emotional hump”and PM Lee urges Singaporeans to try to understand what the White Paper sets out to achieve which is a better life for Singaporeans.

At the end of all the debate and discussion, the PAP and our PM say they have the right rational answer and Singaporeans are viewing the White Paper in an emotional manner failing to see that it is a plan that will improve the lives of Singaporeans and bring about a brighter future for Singaporeans.

Actually nothing can be futher from the truth. If you speak to ordinary Singaporeans, they have followed this issue very closely and have good grasp of the trade offs and understand there is no perfect solution.

The reason for the anger is not irrationality but the proposal of the PAP to double down on a strategy that has not delivered. Singaporeans are all too familiar with the kind of GDP growth achieve through population growth – they have live through the period when our population grew from 3M to 5.3M.

They understand the economic implications of growing the economy by importing labor. It is not just the strains on our infrastructure that is felt in recent years but the deep economic effects such as stagnant wages, widening income inequality, structural unemployment, rising poverty and increase in cost of living.

There is overwhelming evidence that if we continue to go along this path, despite the promises of better infrastructure, life will get worse for most Singaporeans. Today we have 400,000 Singaporean workers whose wages have been depressed to the point that they depend on Workfare to survive.

The anger among Singaporeans does not come from failure to understand what the White Paper aims to achieve but from an understanding of the negative outcomes we will get from what is proposed in the White Paper.


“Don’t be so gung-ho about slower growth rate” - Minister Tan Chuan Jin


If you take your time to read the speeches by PAP MPs and ministers during the White Paper debate, you will find the one clear ideological belief that stands out is that we need faster economic growth to achieve a better quality of life for Singaporeans. The PAP believes we need to have this growth for the lives of Singaporeans to improve. For this reason, the proposal by the Workers’ Party to freeze foreign workers at today’s level, aim for slower growth of 1% and allow the economy and businesses to restructure, was attacked by PAP MPs.


If you examine the economic growth of the last 10 years achieved through population expansion, you find that most of the benefits goes to a small concentrated number at the top while those at the bottom suffered from the negative effects of this growth.

If you examine the economic data of the last 3 years, you see the negative effects seeping into the middle class [Link] which is now under pressure. If we continue along the same path of growth by importing labor, we will not achieve the outcome of better lives for Singaporeans.

Through its thick ideological lens, the PAP has failed to see the real problems faced by our society. If they wanted to improve our lives why did they not have a White Paper on how to narrow the income gap, a White Paper on keeping medical care cost affordable or a White Paper on how to care for our seniors and ensure they can retire gracefully.

If the proposals in the White Paper is followed, our problems will grow and become even more unsolvable. Our economy that is now over-dependent on foreign labor will become even more dependent on foreign labor. The income gap will rise further and the quality of life of Singaporeans will decline in an irreversible manner. Our common identity will be threatened and so will our future.

I believe Singaporeans are right to oppose the White Paper and many have been mobilised from the sidelines to speak up for what they believe is right. The White Paper debate has allowed many Singaporeans to clearly understand the PAP govt’s position and its assumptions …much of this goes against the experience they have been through in the last decade and Singaporeans know it will take us to a future we do not want for ourselves and our children.


Lucky Tan

*The writer blogs at http://singaporemind.blogspot.ca/

[seletar]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/12...man-fertility/

Population Density is a Key Factor in Declining Human Fertility

February 12th, 2013


As population density increases, fertility declines, according to the study.

A study carried out by W. Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, M. R. Testa of the Vienna Institute of Demography at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and D. J. Penn of the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Ethology also at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, shows that ‘Population Density is a Key Factor in Declining Human Fertility‘.

Using fixed effects models on the time series of 145 countries and controlling for key social and economic variables, the 3 Austrian social scientists found a consistent and significant negative relationship between human fertility and population density. Moreover, they found that individual fertility preferences also decline with population density. These findings suggest that population density should be included as a variable in future studies of fertility determinants. These significant findings were published in 2007.

This study was also quoted by NSP in its alternative Population Plan for Singapore (‘NSP proposes alternative Population Plan for Singapore‘). NSP said:

“Looking at the data both internationally and domestically, it can be seen that when population density increases, fertility decreases. This is supported by independent research in Austria. Increasing Singapore population to 6.9 million by 2030 is therefore, likely to further depress Singapore’s fertility rate, creating a vicious cycle. There is a need to focus on improving Singapore’s fertility rate if we want to continue growing our economy with minimal social problems.”

The paper published by the study, said, “In many parts of Europe and some Asian countries, fertility rates have recently fallen to such low levels that the resultant rapid population ageing and shrinking already causes widespread concern. Various social, economic, political and bio-medical factors are associated with declines in birth rates but few social scientists have considered population density even though density has been shown to be a key determinant in many animal populations.”

In other words, even in the animal kingdom, population density does affect animal populations too.

It said, “If human fertility also depends on population density, this will have important implications for population projections…”

The paper said that population growth in the developing world is mainly due to high fertility rates combined with a very young age structure that results in increasing cohorts of women entering reproductive age. In Europe, by contrast, below-replacement fertility has resulted in an age structure with fewer children and therefore fewer women entering reproductive age in the future.

The paper also noted that a wide range of species — whether microbes, mussels, fruit flies or elephants — have been found to have density-dependent effects on survival and reproduction. Domestic animals have long been known to show reduced reproduction at high population densities and an increasing number of studies have found density-dependent reproduction in the wild. For example, reproduction has been observed to decline with increasing density in birds and mammals and experiments also show that reproduction can be density-dependent in the wild.

Food resource limitation is suspected to be an important mechanism behind density-dependent reproduction, although stress-induced endocrine changes from crowding are also known to curtail reproduction in primates and other mammals. It is not difficult to understand why such responses have evolved. When survival is density-dependent, density-dependent reproduction will provide a selective advantage.

Indeed, experimental studies on birds found that individuals adaptively adjust their number of offspring according to population density. There have been few studies that explicitly addressed the relationship between density and reproduction in humans, although they have generally found a significant negative relationship, even in very different settings. A systematic review of this relationship for historical rural societies also found significant negative elasticities. And yet, over the past two decades mainstream demographic analyses have generally ignored density as a possible determinant of human fertility.

In their search for an explanation for modern fertility declines, evolutionary demographers have focused on the fitness costs of reproduction, and whether low-fertility parents are trading offspring quantity for quality and ignoring density dependence.

To comprehensively assess the relationship between population density (i.e, population per total land area) and human fertility (i.e, number of births per woman), the Austrian scientists assembled a broad range of data, covering 159 countries since 1960.

Using mathematical analysis, the findings of the Austrian scientists imply that population density should be added to the list of the usual factors that are assumed to affect human fertility (i.e., education, women’s status, economic development, etc.). Density-dependence and the importance of these other factors are not mutually exclusive, and density may affect or interact with these other factors (e.g., women may gain more status at higher population densities).

The scientists also found that density is correlated with reduced fertility preferences, as well as actual outcomes, suggesting that it affects individual reproductive decisions. The scientists suggested that the personal perception of density (living space, availability of interpersonal communication, etc.) plays a role in this context. This idea is consistent with the ‘‘frontier effect,’’ which postulates that fertility preferences increase under low density.

Fertility preferences are expected to decline with increased costs of rearing children, such as child-care, housing, education, and trade-offs with economically productive work and these factors can increase with population density.

The paper concluded that a robust, negative association between fertility and population density has far reaching consequences, ranging from the projections of future regional fertility differentials to the way we model human population dynamics.

Singapore

So, what about the situation in Singapore? Looking at the population density and the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of Singapore from 1975 to 2011, it also appears that there is a significant negative relationship between fertility and population density, as put forward by the paper.

Population density (people per sq. km) in Singapore [Link]:

http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/popdensity.jpg?9d7bd4

TFR chart from NPTD’s Population White Paper:

http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/tfr.jpg?9d7bd4

In this regard, NPTD of the Prime Minister’s Office should take heed of such prestigious international studies linking population density to fertility rate. With the increase in population density in Singapore by bringing in another million more foreigners into the country in the next 17 years, our TFR would naturally fall further, according to this Austrian study.

[seletar]

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...antiated-case/

Population growth: Losing the debate with an unsubstantiated case

By Gordon Lee


Recent days have seen much scaremongering by politicians, businesses and the mainstream media about perils of calling bluff on the Government’s Population White Paper.

But with the best of efforts to assuage the growing sense of apprehension over the targeted 30% increase (unless the Government has completely no control over the population, population projections equates population targets – any claim otherwise is superfluous), the Government is clearly losing the debate.

This is no surprise considering the economic evidence against them, and the fact that the Government has offered no support for their position. Such were the views held not just by a few sensible Members of Parliament, but also by experts like Donald Low, a senior fellow at the LKY School of Public Policy and a former top civil servant.


The burden of proof

In an earlier article, I have reviewed the economic literature surrounding an ageing population.

In short, the evidence from around world suggests that an ageing population does not have any significant detrimental socio-economic effects. Some studies suggest manageable consequences, others suggest potential benefits.

Since my last article, several readers have commented that these international studies may not apply to Singapore. I believe that Singapore is subject to same laws of economics, and that its circumstances are not extraordinary. But, this is not important.

Since I was born in the late 1980s, the population has already increased 70%. If the Government wishes to grow the population by another 30% by 2030, the burden of proof should lie upon the Government to justify its drastic population policies.


Failure of governance

Unfortunately, the Government has failed to justify their drastic measures by making the following case, that

1) the effects of an ageing population are dire, and

2) their policies are sustainable and appropriate.

Donald Low, a senior fellow at the LKY School of Public Policy and a former top civil servant, has also criticised the Government’s amateurish approach and said that there “wasn’t even a References section to show what research the writers of the paper had done, what social science theories they relied on, what competing theories/frameworks they looked at… There was also a surprising lack of rigorous comparison with other countries that have gone through, or are going through, a similar demographic transition.” [1]


Diagnosing the disease

The lack of academic rigour in Government policy is indeed endemic, and is a legacy of the “Government-knows-best” approach typical of authoritarian regimes.

This Government continues to consider it legitimate to peddle assertions without attempting justification, to claim economic literacy without academic backing, and to dictate measures without genuine consultation.

To that end, the Government has maintained a monopoly over vital information that would expose itself to democratic scrutiny [2], and sterilised the political culture of “needless” evidence-based policy making.

This is a huge disservice to the principles of public debate, democracy and governance.


Scaremongering

How very kind then of the media to “contribute” to the debate with scaremongering tactics in the form of headlines like “Several foreign firms prepare to leave Singapore” – Business Times (SPH). [3]

It is obvious why the Government and businesses would like an ever-growing population. As The Economist explained, “Governments hate the idea of a shrinking population because the absolute size of GDP matters for great-power status… Companies worry, too: they do not like the idea of their domestic markets shrinking. People should not mind, though. What matters for economic welfare is GDP per person.” [4]


Economic realities

There is no cause for concern, much less alarm.

In the face of economic competition, uncompetitive companies have always had to reinvent themselves or leave the market. There is no tear to be shed for the least productive and the most labour-intensive companies leaving the market. That is the nature of economic competition which leads to a more productive economy. In Singapore, the ready availability of labour had provided little incentive for businesses to invest in improving their pathetic record of labour productivity.

Indeed, the Ministry of Manpower has acknowledged this fact. “Productivity gains have declined in recent years due to heavier reliance on labour inputs to generate economic growth, especially inputs of foreign manpower.” [5]

Also, businesses had initially expected a rate of growth in the labour force to be higher than currently projected in the White Paper. As businesses make plans years in advance, they have had to now reassess their capacities and scale them down in light of new information. There is no reason to think that there will be any increase in unemployment.


Inadequate case for unsustainable population growth

Crucially, the dubious economic model used by the Government to justify ever-increasing population is unsustainable. This is a reality that the Government has to, sooner rather than later, accept.

Not that this is a bitter pill to swallow. Evidence from around the world suggests that the Government is wrong to assert (baselessly) that an ageing population has any significant detrimental socio-economic effects. [6]

Unless the Government is able to satisfactorily discharge its burden of proof, it should abandon its madcap policies (which are unsupported by facts) and aim for population stabilisation whilst researching the literature and evidence surrounding demographic policies.

[1] http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/experts-weigh-population-projections

[2] http://sudhirtv.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/the-problem-with-the-national-conversation-information-asymmetries/

[3] http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/premium/top-stories/several-foreign-firms-prepare-leave-spore-20130205

[4] http://www.economist.com/node/5358255?story_id=E1_VPVRNVV

[5] http://www.mom.gov.sg/skills-training-and-development/productivity/Pages/what-is-productivity.aspx

[6] https://www.facebook.com/notes/gordon-lee/busting-the-ageing-population-myth/101512480

[seletar]

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...n-white-paper/

Dubious footnotes in the Population White Paper

By Gordon Lee


Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean (who heads the National Population and Talent Division) apologised for the error in footnote 12 in the population white paper which misrepresented nursing as being low-skilled.

Yet, the misrepresentation is not limited to just footnote 12. Here is a selection of other misleading footnotes in the contentious White Paper.

Footnote 2 states that “A comparison of advanced countries shows that incomes grow faster when economic growth is good. Poor growth may also affect employment prospects, especially for lower-educated workers.”

Yet, this in no way supports the erroneous point that the white paper was trying to make – that without economic growth, unemployment would rise. What the white paper should have instead claimed is: Without economic growth, and with a growth in the labour force, unemployment would rise. This simple omission is an important one. If there is no growth in the labour force, unemployment levels would be less susceptible to a lack of economic growth.

Footnote 3 claims that “Economic growth has allowed the Government to introduce various transfer schemes to help lower-income Singaporeans, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher scheme.”

GST was introduced at 3% in 1994, and raised over time to 7% in 2007.

What the footnote should have said was “Taxing consumption via GST has allowed the Government to introduce the GST Voucher Scheme, i.e. take with one hand, and give back with another.”

Footnote 5, that “The World Bank has ranked Singapore top for ease of doing business”, was used to support that point that “Our well-educated and skilled workforce, good connectivity, reliable public services, stable government, and rule of law make us an attractive place to do business and give us a competitive edge globally.”

Yet, reading the World Bank report revealed that Singapore was ranked highly for legal and procedural effectiveness, and NOT for some of the reasons claimed by the white paper (i.e. educated and skilled workforce, stable government, etc.) Nor does the cited PWC report support the points made. The White Paper should not have misrepresented the World Bank and PWC.

Footnote 7 is plainly ridiculous. It states that the labour productivity forecast for 2010-2020 of 2-3% is simply the target of the Economic Strategies Committee. The ESC report says “We can achieve productivity growth of 2 to 3 percent per year over the next 10 years, more than double the 1 percent rate achieved over the last decade. This is a challenging target.”

It is good and ambitious to have a “challenging target”, but surely Government report and policies should be based on a more reasonable target.

Footnote 7 goes on to claim that their forecast for 2020-2030 “is assessed to be 1% to 2% per year, similar to the experience of OECD countries over the last decade (i.e. 2000-2010).” How NPTD assessed the accuracy of this statement is not elaborated upon.

Conclusion

It is deeply regrettable that the NPTD would go public with such a poorly-substantiated documented. Doing so only encourages speculation that the White Paper is little more than an attempt to create an illusion of robust support, by quoting evidence out of context.

Sadly, the lack of public support is still evident. Donald Low, a senior fellow at the LKY School of Public Policy and a former top civil servant, has criticised the white paper saying that there “wasn’t even a References section to show what research the writers of the paper had done, what social science theories they relied on, what competing theories/frameworks they looked at… There was also a surprising lack of rigorous comparison with other countries that have gone through, or are going through, a similar demographic transition.”

The poverty of intelligent thinking in Government policies makes us all the poorer.

[phantom_opera]

Mr seletar has no negative property news to copy and paste, now starting to copy / paste political news

[Leeds]

Mr seletar has no negative property news to copy and paste, now starting to copy / paste political news

You know what! I am more concern with no negative property news. It means that we are too comfortable with the present environment and tend to loose our guards. It is like what I had described earlier:

A frog feeling comfortable in a bowl of slow heating water until it is too late to react.

[seletar]

http://ride.asiaone.com/news/transpo...ains-and-buses

Poll: Are you happy with public transport?
No. 1 peeve: Packed trains and buses


Commuters packed into an MRT train at Ang Mo Kio Station. In a My Paper survey last month of 150 Singaporeans and permanent residents aged between 17 and 50, 47 per cent of respondents felt that trains are overcrowded.


Haley Chan and Andre C. Neville | My Paper | Wednesday, Feb 13, 2013


SINGAPORE - Administrative assistant Devakumar Thirignasambhantham dreads his journey to work every morning.

The 26-year-old, who travels for about an hour on the train from his home in Tanah Merah to his workplace in Raffles Place, said that crowds on trains can sometimes be unbearable.

"It's just too crowded during peak hours. So I leave my house earlier, sometimes as early as 6.30am, to avoid the crowded trains," he said.

He was among 150 respondents polled in a survey last month by My Paper entitled: "Are you happy with public transport?"

Respondents were Singaporeans and permanent residents aged between 17 and 50, and who were mostly working adults. They were asked 14 questions over the telephone and at three MRT stations.

What the respondents said

The straw poll found that the No. 1 public-transport peeve was overcrowdedness for both train and bus commuters. Nearly half, or 47 per c ent, of respondents felt that trains are overcrowded, while about 47 per cent felt the same way about buses.

About 55 per cent of respondents also felt that they are spending more on public-transport fares this year, despite no fare hikes introduced over the past 12 months.

Also, 53 per cent of those polled said they were satisfied with how transport operators deal with train delays through the use of public announcements at MRT stations.

The Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) Household Interview Travel Survey, due to be released later this year, should see a rise in the share of public-transport trips, The Straits Times reported.

The Straits Times said that in the recently-released Land Use Plan, the Government is targeting this share to hit 75 per cent by 2030, when the population here could reach 6.9 million.

In the last survey, done in 2008, the percentage was 59 per cent - down from 63 per cent in 2004.

Mr Cedric Foo, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, acknowledged that trains and buses are crowded.

[seletar]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/fire-at-new...014947331.html


Newton MRT station fire put out, train service resumes



Yahoo! Newsroom – 4 hours ago





The fire at Newton MRT station on Wednesday morning has been extinguished. There were no casualties.

[See video here. More photos here]

SMRT said in Facebook update that the fire started around 905am. It involved electrical wirings just north of the Newton station, about five metres away from the station platform. The fire, which caused smoke to get inside the MRT, was put out in an hour.

At the time, north-bound trains along the North-South line were affected and free bus services were activated between Newton and Toa Payoh to ferry affected commuters. Free bus bridging services were also provided for commuters between Marina Bay and Toa Payoh.

South-bound trains towards the city were also turned around at Newton station while the fire was being put out, causing a delay to commuters who were on their way back to work after the extended Lunar New Year break.

Normal train service resumed after a 2.5-hour disruption.

SCDF said it dispatched two fire engines, two red rhinos and several support vehicles when it was alerted shortly after 9am. The fire was extinguished using fire extinguishers and a small quantity of foam.
A video sent to Yahoo! Singapore by a commuter showed thick smoke inside the station as commuters were seen exiting the station calmly.

Commuter Victor Tan, who was on a train heading to his office in Toa Payoh, said his train was delayed for several minutes at Newton MRT shortly before 9am as a station announcement was made regarding the delay.

The 31-year-old civil servant then noticed smoke starting to spread in the cabins and passengers began evacuating the train in an orderly manner when the train doors opened.

He said "the smoke wasn't choking" and "everyone evacuated in an orderly manner".

The fire is the latest in a line of MRT disruptions stretching back for the last two years.

Just last month, nearly 60,000 commuters were affected by a seven-hour breakdown along the North-East Line.

[myfirstpc]

Seletar, please do not crowd the forum with public news. We can read them in other sites. This site if is for property invested forumers. Please do not spam with Today news or Straits Times news here.

[phantom_opera]

You know what! I am more concern with no negative property news. It means that we are too comfortable with the present environment and tend to loose our guards. It is like what I had described earlier:

A frog feeling comfortable in a bowl of slow heating water until it is too late to react.

IMO we should worry about inflation, deflation risk is greatly exaggerated ...why? Because wall street bankers wants u to believe so that US fed can continue this low int rate

[Sam88]

You know what! I am more concern with no negative property news. It means that we are too comfortable with the present environment and tend to loose our guards. It is like what I had described earlier:

A frog feeling comfortable in a bowl of slow heating water until it is too late to react.

i don't get it. you go doctor, do you hope to listen to negative news so you will be like the frog? you don't need negative news to prepare for bad scenarios. likewise, you don't need good news during bad times to prepare for good scenarios.

i hope u don't go to the teacher to give you bad grades so you will be motivated to study and get great result.

[eng81157]

IMO we should worry about inflation, deflation risk is greatly exaggerated ...why? Because wall street bankers wants u to believe so that US fed can continue this low int rate

i'm worried about stagflation.

[sunrise]

Seletar, please do not crowd the forum with public news. We can read them in other sites. This site if is for property invested forumers. Please do not spam with Today news or Straits Times news here.

Seletar,
you should put more time on your reservoir to cater the growing population.
Transport issue not under your territory. go and sleep with the mosquito.

[seletar]

Seletar, please do not crowd the forum with public news. We can read them in other sites. This site if is for property invested forumers. Please do not spam with Today news or Straits Times news here.

All these news could have an effect on the property market, isn't this what this thread is all about?

[seletar]

http://sbr.com.sg/economy/news/heres...oncerned-about

Singapore Business Review
ECONOMY | Staff Reporter, Singapore
Published: 13 Feb 2013


Here's what Singapore MNCs are most concerned about


Soaring property prices are only second biggest issue.

In this year’s survey, Economist Corporate Network members assessed whether issues below where material constraints on their ability to operate—and whether they were serious enough to cause managers to consider decamping to other locations.

Cost of living/inflation tops the chart of major irritants in Singapore with more than half of surveyed companies indicating it to be either a major constraint or a reason to relocate—and nearly 40% consider property prices as having the same impact.

Will this cause companies to look at other places to put their regional management hubs?

Economist Corporate Network says: "In all likelihood not."

"It is still vitally important to have a critical mass of management in places where travel is convenient and the financial system works well. However, that doesn’t mean that firms are doing nothing. Anecdotally, some firms are moving parts of their operations that don’t need to be in their regional hubs into less expensive cities in other countries. Other firms are exploring more distributed management models, spreading their senior team across several markets, rather than putting them all in one place."

[phantom_opera]

It is funny transport and population news comes under property crashing thread
Since I am in new year mood today let me set u thinking...
US Media controlled by wall street so there is every reason to report deflation threat to ensure fed continue its easing plus scare u of holding banana USD and us treasury while in reality wall street will own assets and stocks in anticipation of coming inflation onslaught

So pls do not believe in the US media, Sg media is simply a copycat of us media plus pap machinery period

[Leeds]

i don't get it. you go doctor, do you hope to listen to negative news so you will be like the frog? you don't need negative news to prepare for bad scenarios. likewise, you don't need good news during bad times to prepare for good scenarios.

i hope u don't go to the teacher to give you bad grades so you will be motivated to study and get great result.

Obviously, you had missed my earlier post in another thread.

If there are bad news, it means that crisis is not likely to hit us. Things that can be predicted or prewarned are not likely to lead to crisis. It is when we are too comfortable with the environment like the frog (in the slow heating bowl of water) when the water gets too hot to get out. Crisis usually hits us this way; just when we are comfortable with the surrounding. Hope this help.

[Rysk]

Seletar, please do not crowd the forum with public news. We can read them in other sites. This site if is for property invested forumers. Please do not spam with Today news or Straits Times news here.

By now you should know what's the meaning of "TWIST & TURN cum DIVERT ATTENTION EXPERT"

[sgbuyer]

It is funny transport and population news comes under property crashing thread
Since I am in new year mood today let me set u thinking...
US Media controlled by wall street so there is every reason to report deflation threat to ensure fed continue its easing plus scare u of holding banana USD and us treasury while in reality wall street will own assets and stocks in anticipation of coming inflation onslaught

So pls do not believe in the US media, Sg media is simply a copycat of us media plus pap machinery period

Of course, all this deflation and doomsdays news about America collapsing is nothing but propaganda. The economy is booming.

Watch the i/r later this year when the media can no longer cover up the property boom in progress.

[rockinsg]

Of course, all this deflation and doomsdays news about America collapsing is nothing but propaganda. The economy is booming.

Watch the i/r later this year when the media can no longer cover up the property boom in progress.

Along with US now we gonna have yen onslaught
How can banana money survive

[phantom_opera]

In short, Watch what they do, not what they say in media