Junior
Taken from another forum, maybe from a property agent:
This week's case-study from meeting:
Kovan Regency cluster house
Oct-12
$3,754,000
3,875sqft
$969psf
Jan-13
$3,180,000
3,703sqft
$859psf
REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY
Bigger >2500sqft units
$4,413,277
Area: 2,648sqft
Unit Price: 1,667psf
Jan-13
$4,630,000
Area: 2,573sqft
Unit Price: 1,800psf
Late Nov-12
$6,050,000
Area: 2,605sqft
Unit Price: 2,323psf
Early Nov-12
$6,225,600
Area: 2,594sqft
Unit Price: 2,400psf
Oct-12
Junior
why dont you show a few more cluster development and see if it drops??
Originally Posted by seletar
Newbie
basic, u have to understand the fundamentals of economics. now is already 2013.... look at the PPI now.
Newbie
What is the fundamental of economics? If economic works, USA and europe will not be in the shit they are in now.
Junior
Oh!! This TWIST & TURN cum DIVERT ATTENTION EXPERT MR B already go MIA..
Maybe you can ask his only follower now.. the one & only YOUNG KOK cum INEXPERIENCE SELETAR airbase..
Junior
YOUNG KOK dare not show you.. so let me show you..why dont you show a few more cluster development and see if it drops??
This week's UP UP UP case-study from meeting:
REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY
Average 1700sf unit
$4,300,000
Area: 1,744sqft
Unit Price: 2,466psf
Dec-12
$3,600,000
Area: 1,711sqft
Unit Price: 2,103psf
Oct-12
$2,910,000
Area: 1,690sqft
Unit Price: 1,814psf
Aug-12
Junior
SELETAR airbase damn selfish.. share every piece of news.. but keep this news from us..
This Could Be a Huge Bull Market: Richard Bernstein
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100424864
Office Boy
OMG !!!YOUNG KOK dare not show you.. so let me show you..
This week's UP UP UP case-study from meeting:
REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY
Average 1700sf unit
$4,300,000
Area: 1,744sqft
Unit Price: 2,466psf
Dec-12
$3,600,000
Area: 1,711sqft
Unit Price: 2,103psf
Oct-12
$2,910,000
Area: 1,690sqft
Unit Price: 1,814psf
Aug-12
Reflections hit $2,466 psf ??!!!
OMG OMG OMG !
I think the Bull has just managed to unleash one of its strings, ready to charge real soon !!
Sit Tight!
DKSG
PS : But of course for those MTBs still at the jetty, can sit back and watch the speed boat coming ...
Junior
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--...050225137.html
YOUR VIEW: There is no need for 7 million people
By Yahoo! Singapore | Yahoo! Newsroom – 20 hours ago
This email by a reader was sent to us. We welcome your views via [email protected]. Please include your full name, age and occupation if you want your emails to be considered for publishing. Please note that all submissions will be subject to these terms.
The government's recently revealed plan to increase the population of Singapore to 7 million is a shocking one. Most people I know are incredulous at the audacity of such an action and question not only the need but the governments authority to do such a thing.
After G.E. 2011, when the PAP got only 60 per cent of the vote, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong came on the news all contrite and humble and said words to the effect that the government would put in place measures to slow the rate of immigration and curb the inflow of foreign workers. Now he is saying more immigration and therefore also more foreign workers to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate the extra numbers. PM Lee must have had these plans up his sleeve for a long time. Was he lying to us when he made those remarks after G.E. 2011?
I also remember him saying, just before G.E. 2011 and the by-elections in Punggol East, that the government was here to serve people and not to rule over them. Well who, then, gave the servants the right to invite people to come and live in our already overcrowded home? We are full up already. Don't the masters of the house have a say in a decision such as this which will alter our lives and our country forever?
I may not be an economist but my gut tells me that a population of 7 million people on this tiny island is a ridiculous idea. In the mainstream media the government has been trumpeting the benefits of having a larger population. For as many proponents of the motion, there are just as many who speak out against it. A gentleman who worked at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy wrote an article some years ago, which was published in the Straits Times, that said that it was quiet possible for Singapore to survive and even prosper with just 4 million. I don't know if he still has a job there but I agree with him. There is NO NEED for 7 million. The term "Ponzi Demographics" is being used to describe the plans in the White Paper.
Singapore is a small island with no natural resources to speak of. Not even water. With brilliant foresight, though, MM Lee Kuan Yew and the first generation of leaders built Singapore into the vital business and financial center that it is today. Our position is still precarious because as long as the world economy is healthy we are in business. What will happen in Singapore if there is a world-wide recession?
After losing the by-election in Punggol East PM Lee also admitted to not "having 20/20 eyesight". Once before I also remember him saying that the government cannot foresee everything or words to that effect. How, then, can he be so sure that what he is doing will be a roaring success?
Not every citizen thinks like a cold-minded and calculative economist. To them this country is "home sweet home" and not just an "income opportunity" or some place to park their investments. They are loyal Singaporeans. This is their home. The government must respect that.
Brian Vittachi, 56
Operations Manager
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/01...ways-than-one/
Is Singapore broke or bankrupt in more ways than one?
February 1st, 2013
With the recent calls to increase the population, and the so called assurances and justification from the PAP, one can only wonder what the heck is going on to the quality of life in Singapore for true blue Singaporeans.
We have become a close to extinct nationality and have become a third class citizen in our own country. There was a recent article saying that they will retain lower skilled workers and have more jobs for PMET.
How can we have more jobs, when NS and reservist is a liability, look at the hiring patterns, do you not see foreigners bringing in their own country man?
The PMET jobs that we are talking about, do these just drop from the sky?
Today locals are not even hired by Singaporean owned companies, what message does it send to the rest of the world out there?
The PAP is divorced from reality and is living in denial of the problems that we are facing, can you imagine a Singaporean being jobless in a population of 7 million, what are your job opportunities with such an influx. The cost of living will go up and maybe they may even implement ERP in shopping malls, and their excuse is to prevent overcrowding.
The root of the problem we have to ask ourselves is whether we are going to wake up one day and find ourselves bankrupt in more ways than one, or we are already in this state now?
We can’t even solve the issues of overcrowding and escalating cost of living today, but we want to make the situation worse?
It seems the way to solve the problem these days is to create more problems?
What happened to the CPF investments of GIC and Temasek, why do we not get a share of these earnings since these investments started off with our CPF money as seed money?
To the many that are afraid to face the challenges ahead, please grow a backbone and standup for Singapore!
Vote opposition, be heard and represented in parliament and love your country!
Luke
Junior
he is there.
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...mpact-20130202
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 02, 2013
Land Use Plan: Worrying environmental impact
IN CONCERT with the release of the Population White Paper, the Government has unveiled its Land Use Plan on how land will be used in 2030 ("Plan to grow space for rising population"; yesterday).
Worryingly, this map shows major reclamation taking place in Pulau Tekong and Tuas, and possible changes to Pulau Ubin and the coastlines of Kranji, Mandai, Pasir Ris, Changi and Tanah Merah, as well as the Southern Islands of Pulau Hantu and Pulau Semakau.
Does this mean that valuable hot spots of native biodiversity such as Chek Jawa, and the mangroves and mudflats of the northern coastline (except for Sungei Buloh), as well as various small coral reefs and intertidal areas, would be lost forever?
Also, terrestrial nature areas such as Bukit Brown, which are home to rich native wildlife, are to become housing estates.
If we truly are to be a "City in a Garden", as the White Paper says, then we need to stop bulldozing the natural gardens that already exist in our backyard and replacing them with manicured parks.
Jonathan Tan Yong How
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...jects-20130202
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 02, 2013
Speed up work on older BTO projects
THE Government encourages married couples to have babies. My husband and I do want to have children, but we cannot do so at the moment because we have no home to call our own.
I have been married for more than three years, and all this while, I have been living with my in-laws.
My husband and I do not plan to have children yet because of space constraints in my in-laws' home.
We applied for a Build-to-Order (BTO) project, SkyVille@Dawson, in December 2009.
The Government has said that more affordable new housing would be provided with shorter waiting times ("Buying HDB flats: Easier, more affordable"; March 4, 2011). But this is not the case for older projects that were launched before the announcement.
The estimated completion date of our BTO flat is between the third quarter of 2015 and 2016.
If we were to wait till then, we would have been married for six years before we can start thinking about having children.
By then, it would be harder for us to conceive because of our age.
I urge the Government to speed up older BTO projects such as Skyville@Dawson to help couples like us start families earlier.
Jaslin Huang (Ms)
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...nning-20130202
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 02, 2013
Tread carefully in population planning
THE Government should be commended for seeking long-term solutions to our population and economic problems ("Population could hit 6.9m by 2030"; Wednesday).
These are areas full of pitfalls and where hindsight often prevails. For instance, in the 1970s, the Government sought to limit births, but now we are encouraging them.
It is comforting to note that the Population White Paper strives for a judicious balance to achieve our goal of a sustainable population.
Nevertheless, one cannot help but have some misgivings.
The idea of taking in new immigrants to counter our ageing population may be flawed. Everyone eventually gets old. Would we be initiating a never-ending vicious circle?
China is an example of how difficult it is to reverse population growth, even with draconian measures for half a century.
There was a time when people retired at the age of 55. Thanks to medical progress, more and more people can now work well into their 70s and even beyond. Thus, the perception of an "ageing population" has to change.
I shudder to think what our "high-quality living environment" would be like when our population reaches seven million.
Our geographical resources are limited. Hong Kong has an almost unlimited hinterland, which we do not have.
In scientific experiments, when the rat population in a cage reaches a certain density, the animals start to attack one another. We are not rats, but we are not saints either.
A high gross domestic product has its cost, as seen in China, with its environmental pollution and generally low moral values resulting from intense competition.
By all means, we should take in quality immigrants and temporary low-end workers, but we should not go overboard.
There is a need to tread carefully, and constantly and objectively review our policies against the real-time situation.
Ong Siew Chey (Dr)
Valued Contributor
These people are really brainless. When they buy, they already know will take 6 years. If they want faster, should go buy a normal BTO. 2.5 years settle. I think PAP will be out, thanks to many of these idiots.
Newbie
Interlace all along got 10% discount.
Developer just announced another 10% discount.
D Leedon recently 15% discount.
GSS akan datang?
Junior
http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-pr...fears/a/103172
Coping with a rise in numbers: S'poreans' fears
Home prices, competition for jobs, overcrowding among top worries
The Straits Times - January 31, 2013
By: Goh Chin Lian, Charissa Yong And Walter Sim
MANY Singaporeans reacted with surprise - or alarm - at the 6.9 million population projected for 2030, with several wondering whether the country can cope with the 30 per cent increase.
Although the swell is 17 years away, they are worried about several issues that they say they are already facing now.
These include competition for jobs, cost of living, home prices and congestion, according to street interviews by The Straits Times yesterday, one day after the Government released its Population White Paper.
Of the 100 people aged 15 to 73, exactly half rejected the idea of Singapore having 6.9 million people, while another 35 were unsure. Only 15 said it was a good idea.
To help boost the population, more foreigners will be let in and their numbers are expected to grow from 1.49 million - as of June last year - to around 2.3 million to 2.5 million by 2030, according to the White Paper.
This raised concerns about whether homes will be affordable.
Even though enough land has been set aside to build 700,000 new Housing Board homes by 2030, one-third of those interviewed worry that prices will be high as a result of the influx of foreigners.
They wanted the Government to keep a lid on home prices and raise the income ceiling to qualify for subsidies. Some wondered if new HDB flats would further shrink in size.
"The Government says it will build more homes. But what is the point if they are all much smaller, like the homes in Hong Kong? Our quality of living will go down," said Mr Ganeesan Packrisamy, a 50-year-old driver.
Others, especially those who expect to retire by 2030, expressed concern about health-care costs, and asked if more could be done to further cut their medical bills.
Overcrowding was another major concern, with many expressing doubt that the country's infrastructure could cope with 6.9 million people, despite the Government's pledge to plan ahead.
They feel the congestion will worsen the already crowded roads and public transport.
Said analyst Chun Hui, 23: "It is already a tight squeeze when we board trains. Will we end up having to be pushed into the train by staff, like they do in Tokyo?"
The biggest concern, however, was competition for jobs, with 41 of the 100 interviewed having misgivings on whether Singaporeans would be able to land good jobs.
Despite government assurances of maintaining a Singaporean core, some like bank consultant Ben Tan, 43, want laws to ensure employers hire Singaporeans first.
Others called for more skills upgrading, reserving jobs for the less-educated, and measures to raise wages to match inflation.
They also wonder whether foreigners would be able to integrate with Singaporeans, given their different cultural behaviours and ability to communicate in English.
Housing agent Hamidah Gaffar, 59, suggested giving foreigners more help in integration, such as free English lessons and handbooks on the Singaporean way of life.
But people like cook Goh Him Boo feel the idea of having 6.9 million people is realistic and necessary.
Said the 58-year-old: "It's better to have more people, otherwise our shopping centres will become all quiet."
Added housekeeper Shanti Dorasamy, 41: "We'll have more people to support our population and have more babies."
The White Paper on a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore is available online at http://population.sg/
Junior
https://www.facebook.com/notes/theon...51316342333964
HDB BTO prices de-linked from resale flats?
theonlinecitizen on Friday, February 1, 2013 at 5:15am
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “BTO prices will not rise with resale market: Khaw” (Straits Times, Feb 1).
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/bto-prices-will-not-rise-resale-market-khaw-20130131
BTO de-linked from resale prices?
It states that “National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan today made clear that he has de-linked the prices of new flats sold by HDB from the resale flat market.
He has done this ever since he took over the housing portfolio in 2011 to ensure that Build-to-Order (BTO) flats remain affordable despite the rising resale market, he said.
Speaking to reporters at the HDB hub on Thursday morning, he noted that BTO prices across HDB’s new launches in the past 18 months have been stable, although prices of resale flats have been steadily climbing.”
Why only announce now?
Since the prices of new flats have been delinked from resale prices since mid 2011, why did we wait more than one and a half years to tell Singaporeans of this significant policy change?
Why wasn’t such good news announced before the Punggol-East by-election?
In a reply in parliament in November, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1237607/1/.htmlit was said that “the overall BTO prices have increased by 12 per cent since January 2009.
This is despite the 34 per cent increase in the HDB Resale Price Index (RPI) over the same period.”
So, why was this “delinking of prices” policy change not mentioned in November in the parliamentary reply?
The parliamentary reply seems to imply that new flats’ prices have been moderated against resale prices, rather than delinking.
Breakdown of BTO prices?
We should be given a detailed breakdown of BTO prices since mid 2011, instead of just a statement that “BTO prices across HDB’s new launches in the past 18 months have been stable, although prices of resale flats have been steadily climbing”.
Affordability index should decline?
Also, the HDB’s affordability index which is first-timers buying flats in non-mature estates using about 23 per cent of their monthly income to pay for their housing loans, seems to have been creeping up from about 21 per cent.
If new flats’ prices have been kept “stable”, and presumably first-timers’ incomes have been increasing, shouldn’t the affordability index be declining?
“Chicken rice” analogy?
As to “This means that the subsidy that the Government is giving for the construction and sale of new flats has been growing”, allow me to use the “chicken rice” analogy.
If the restaurant has been increasing the price of chicken rice to $5, and you also increase your price to $3, even though your cost is $1, you then say that you are giving a subsidy of $2 to the customer.
All of a sudden now, you say that you will delink your price from the restaurant’s price, and will keep your price “stable” at $3.
Are you giving a subsidy or still making money?
Breakdown of construction and land costs?
Anyway, now that new flats’ prices have been delinked, isn’t it the right time now to disclose the breakdown of the construction and land costs?
Pay for extras?
I saw a posting in a newspaper forum page discussion thread http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/bto-prices-will-not-rise-resale-market-khaw-20130131, which said “but HDB remove some standard finishing from some BTO flats. Previously for premium BTO flats, floor tiles/wooden flooring is included in the purchase price. But now buyers have to top up for floorings, bathroom equipments and even partition walls. After adding all these optionals, it is definitely more expensive to own a flat now than 18 months ago. And HDB have the practice of marking up prices at subsequent re-launches even though they are exactly the same units”. Of course, I am unable to verify what was said in this posting.
Music of the night
really bullshit, mature estate still very much pegged to resale, recently the AMK BTO is 600psf (which is already cheap as Centro is 1500psf)
what the PAP did score is extra grant for the poor for non-mature estates..
Ride at your own risk !!!
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/02...tion-promises/
PAP’s history of not keeping past population promises
February 2nd, 2013
Singapore’s population has jumped by more than 1.1 million since mid-2004, and today it stands at 5.31 million. In 2004, Singapore had a Total Fertility rate (TFR) of 1.24. In 2010 at the peak of immigrant influx, the TFR fell to 1.16. In 2012, against the PAP Government’s assurance after the last General Election, that it will moderate the inflow of foreigners, the TFR increased marginally, and is now estimated to be at 1.28 – 1.30.
Against this backdrop the PAP Government has released its White Paper, ‘A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore’, projecting a population of 6.9 million people in 2030. The population white paper is centered on the belief that ‘our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy’. This increased population projection is not without merits, for it will benefit construction, land transport, healthcare, and property companies.
There are however trade-offs. One trade-off would be, uneven distribution of income. The PAP Government’s foreign worker and immigration policies did make a significant impact on our country’s inequality patterns. There is evidence that the PAP Government’s excessively liberal foreign worker and immigration policies in the last decade have contributed to rising inequality, wage stagnation, and real wage decline for certain segments of the workforce.
The other trade-off being overcrowding. Despite the Government’s pledge that they will plan ahead, because of past precedence of reneging on such pledges, there are doubts if the country’s infrastructure could cope with 6.9 million people in 2030.
In 1989 for example, the Housing & Development Board projected a population of 3.21 million in 2030.
In 2001, the Urban Redevelopment Authority predicted that in 40 – 50 years from 2001, the population of Singapore will be 5.5 million.
Mah Bow Than, then-National Development Minister assured Singapore citizens in 2001 that, “…even with a 5.5 million population, we can still enjoy a variety of living environments. Although the percentage of low-density housing will be slightly lower, there will be an overall increase of more than 50,000 low-density dwelling units beyond the current stock.” Look at the assurances and even the map that went with the assurances then, with the map and promises being made by the various Ministers today. Do they seem similar?
Then in 2007, the Ministry for National Development projected a population of 6.5 million in 40 – 50 years time. Which means that between 2047 – 2057, the population of Singapore could hit 6.5 million. And just as before, the Minister assured Singaporeans that quality of life won’t be compromised.
The population white paper says, ‘As our economy matures, we will have to sustain a pace of growth compatible with our changing demographics. Up to 2020, if we can achieve 2% to 3% productivity growth per year (which is an ambitious stretch target), and maintain overall workforce growth at 1% to 2%, then we can get 3% to 5% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth on average. But over the whole period, GDP growth is more likely to average 3% to 4%, though we may exceed that in good years’; which goes to show that the PAP Government is only continuing its current policies, where priority is given to GDP growth. GDP Growth is a misleading proxy for citizen welfare.
“Rapid economic growth has already provided Singapore with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, at US$37,597 in 2008. But, Singapore also has a very unequal distribution of that high income — profits take about 46% of GDP, which is extremely high in comparison with most developed economies.” – Economist Manu Bhaskaran (2009)
Ravi Philemon
* This article was first published in Ravi Philemon’s blog at http://www.raviphilemon.net. He is a member of NSP.
Newbie
bro Seletar, are u trying to tell us that the population will be higher than 6.9 mil? and that we should start buying more?
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/02...tion-promises/
PAP’s history of not keeping past population promises
February 2nd, 2013
Singapore’s population has jumped by more than 1.1 million since mid-2004, and today it stands at 5.31 million. In 2004, Singapore had a Total Fertility rate (TFR) of 1.24. In 2010 at the peak of immigrant influx, the TFR fell to 1.16. In 2012, against the PAP Government’s assurance after the last General Election, that it will moderate the inflow of foreigners, the TFR increased marginally, and is now estimated to be at 1.28 – 1.30.
Against this backdrop the PAP Government has released its White Paper, ‘A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore’, projecting a population of 6.9 million people in 2030. The population white paper is centered on the belief that ‘our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy’. This increased population projection is not without merits, for it will benefit construction, land transport, healthcare, and property companies.
There are however trade-offs. One trade-off would be, uneven distribution of income. The PAP Government’s foreign worker and immigration policies did make a significant impact on our country’s inequality patterns. There is evidence that the PAP Government’s excessively liberal foreign worker and immigration policies in the last decade have contributed to rising inequality, wage stagnation, and real wage decline for certain segments of the workforce.
The other trade-off being overcrowding. Despite the Government’s pledge that they will plan ahead, because of past precedence of reneging on such pledges, there are doubts if the country’s infrastructure could cope with 6.9 million people in 2030.
In 1989 for example, the Housing & Development Board projected a population of 3.21 million in 2030.
In 2001, the Urban Redevelopment Authority predicted that in 40 – 50 years from 2001, the population of Singapore will be 5.5 million.
Mah Bow Than, then-National Development Minister assured Singapore citizens in 2001 that, “…even with a 5.5 million population, we can still enjoy a variety of living environments. Although the percentage of low-density housing will be slightly lower, there will be an overall increase of more than 50,000 low-density dwelling units beyond the current stock.” Look at the assurances and even the map that went with the assurances then, with the map and promises being made by the various Ministers today. Do they seem similar?
Then in 2007, the Ministry for National Development projected a population of 6.5 million in 40 – 50 years time. Which means that between 2047 – 2057, the population of Singapore could hit 6.5 million. And just as before, the Minister assured Singaporeans that quality of life won’t be compromised.
The population white paper says, ‘As our economy matures, we will have to sustain a pace of growth compatible with our changing demographics. Up to 2020, if we can achieve 2% to 3% productivity growth per year (which is an ambitious stretch target), and maintain overall workforce growth at 1% to 2%, then we can get 3% to 5% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth on average. But over the whole period, GDP growth is more likely to average 3% to 4%, though we may exceed that in good years’; which goes to show that the PAP Government is only continuing its current policies, where priority is given to GDP growth. GDP Growth is a misleading proxy for citizen welfare.
“Rapid economic growth has already provided Singapore with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, at US$37,597 in 2008. But, Singapore also has a very unequal distribution of that high income — profits take about 46% of GDP, which is extremely high in comparison with most developed economies.” – Economist Manu Bhaskaran (2009)
Ravi Philemon
* This article was first published in Ravi Philemon’s blog at http://www.raviphilemon.net. He is a member of NSP.
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/02...case-scenario/
PM Lee: I fully agree with Khaw’s explanation that 6.9M is just a worst case scenario
February 2nd, 2013
Yesterday evening (1 Feb), MND Minister Khaw posted a note on MND’s blog saying that the 6.9 million population figure outlined by NPTD’s Population White Paper is just “the worst case scenario” (‘Khaw: 6.9 million figure is the worst case scenario‘).
He added that this is for planning purpose and the actual population figure may be lower, “But as planners, we have to ensure that the infrastructure could accommodate such a figure, if need be. Our hope is that the actual figure would turn out to be much lower.”
Not too long after Mr Khaw wrote on MND’s blog, PM Lee then echoed the same tune in support of Mr Khaw on his Facebook.
PM Lee wrote:
“Fully agree with Khaw Boon Wan’s explanation that a 6.9m population is not a target, but just a worst case, aggressive scenario that we must prepare for. We need to plan consciously and responsibly for the future, so Singaporeans continue to enjoy a good quality of life, and Singapore continues to thrive. – LHL.”However, the netizens are not convinced as seen from the replies and rebuttals on PM Lee’s own Facebook page [Link]:
Andrew Loh, Editor of publichouse.sg, replied:
“In 1991, the Concept Plan’s ‘planning scenario’ was 4 million people. In the 2001 Concept Plan’s ‘planning scenario’, it was 5.5 million. Now, this 2013 White Paper has a ‘planning scenario’ or ‘worst case scenario’ of 6.9 million.Others also asked how can this be just a planning scenario and not a target since the Govt has full control of how many foreigners to let in:
After having reached the first two ‘planning scenario’ figures, you can understand why S’poreans see this ‘6.9 million’ as a target, and not just as a ‘planning scenario’. There is a disconnect between Govt and people here. And it is not the fault of the people.”
Cheok Yew Lee: The govt has full control on how many to let in, so why is this not a target?Many complained about the already crowded situation in Singapore:
Aaron Quek: Dear PM Lee Sir, I do not understand how this can be a scenario and not a planning target. Does our government not control the number of foreigners issued work passes and the number of new citizenship given out? I cannot see how even one foreigner can get his work pass without some ministry knowing about it. Why does our government seem surprised when there are too many people here for the number of houses built and the amount spent on our transportation network?
Yan Thye Lee: Immigrant influx can be controlled accordingly. Why we say – worse case ?? Birth rate – agreed but number of immigrant influx- believe within government control.
Muhaimin Ghostlera: I hope u understand our situation sir… Too big a population will cause crowdedness and we won’t feel comfortable… Please sir I begged u don’t bring in foreigner anymore. This has to stop!Bryan Noisynoisyboy Goh explained how foreign influx will further force Singaporeans not to have kids:
Lyn Lin: closed immigrants gate, we had enough people on small island.
1) Old Singaporeans pass on, new generation Singaporeans can’t afford to raise kids due to crazy prices of livingShamala Thanabal asked why not start bringing down the population figure, “Why not bring the figure down instead of ‘preparing for worse case scenario’?”
2) Govt sees an aging population, bring in foreigners to replace the Old that pass away
3) Singaporeans still cant afford to have kids due to increasing prices of living
4) Govt brings in more foreigners
5) We now have a land of foreigners and few Singaporeans…..
Others talked about the people losing faith and trust in the PAP Govt:
Shafiq Rahman: You are making Singaporeans confused. This should have been told from the start when the White Paper was released. Anyways, people have lost faith in you and PAP. Sir. Either PAP start a good soul searching or some random Party is gonna be voted in in 2016. This is not just some cyber noise. This is reality.Some highlighted the problem with foreigners integrating into Singaporean society:
Cinder Lalokz: You promised in 2011 election you going to decrease intake of new immigrants. You cried in front of us. but now in 2013, I see no differences. First you say you want 6.9mil people. Now you say this is just ‘worst case scenario,’ in case something bad happen. Then you say so we could have good quality life. but who? you or me? all I know my salary is stagnant and you still don’t want to implement minimum wages. how to thrive? And this left me wondering who to believe and if I still know my Singapore or not.
Rosita Lea Sharif: Mr Lee sir, I have 3 children. My eldest in NUS and she told us that there are specially made class just for PRC students taught by PRC lecturers. They don’t mingle with local students nor show interest to. What is really going on sir?? Please listen to all what all of us are writing here. I want my SINGAPORE back. Already there are talks that eventually our sons will be protecting foreigners while these foreigner’s kids enjoy the benefits of residency. My plea as a mother, please please please. Stop this liberal influx of foreigners.And Some are even thinking of getting out of Singapore:
Mark Seow: Nuff said’. I’m migrating to help balance the worst case scenario.To make things worse, it appears that the admins of PM Lee’s Facebook are deleting some of the more negative feedback:
Beldin Kee: Honestly, one should perhaps considered changing nationality, then come back as a foreign talent between 2020-2030, and enjoy the best that our leaders are providing… Just an idea…
Jonathan Ang: Why all the comments deleted? How to feedback upward?
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/02...for-singapore/
NSP proposes alternate Population Plan for Singapore
February 2nd, 2013
Pausing the growth in foreign workforce & improving fertility rate
In light of the PAP Govt releasing its White Paper projecting that the population of Singapore increased to 6.9 million by 2030, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) released its alternate Population Plan for Singapore yesterday (1 Feb).
NSP presented their plan to the public at Bras Basah Complex yesterday evening.
NSP is of the opinion that this massive population increase as proposed by the PAP Govt’s White Paper is likely to further depress Singapore’s fertility rate, creating a vicious cycle. Instead, NSP proposes to focus on improving Singapore’s fertility rate, and limiting the number of foreign workers so as to continue to grow Singapore’s economy with minimal social problems.
In the NSP’s population plan, it made the following crucial points:
1. Population density adversely affects fertility rateIn its population plan, NSP proposes the following:
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.
2. Declining old age support ratio (OASR) in 2030 does not justify bringing in new citizens now
Firstly, economic support of the aged is shared by the whole labour force including citizens and non-citizens. Granting citizenship is not necessary. Secondly, if the low old age support ratio is a concern, then the foreign labour force should only be increased when OASR (calculated using the whole labour force, not just citizens) falls too low, not now, when our OASR is very high by international standards. In fact, bringing in adult new citizens now further add to the size of our aged population beyond 2030.
3. Low fertility rate and declining OASR are, therefore, not the reasons for the liberal immigration and population growth plan
4. Current PAP’s foreign labour policies is depressing the wages of lower skilled Singaporeans and driving up income inequality
i. Focus on improving fertility rate by addressing families’ needs on housing, education and cost of living:NSP argued that PAP’s population plan places at its core immediate economic growth. It continues to believe that economic growth, however derived, will lead to better lives for the people. Their proposal is a continuation of current policies, but with added promises that infrastructure will be built up quickly to accommodate the larger population, one that grows at about 94,000 per year on average.
HDB:
(a) HDB housing for joint selection by first timers and parents, i.e. young couples and their parents select their flats together so that they can choose separate units close to each other (e.g. within the same block but at different levels), for easier child care arrangements and future eldercare arrangements.
(b) Remove resale levy for parents to move near their child
(c) Stop shrinking HDB flats
(d) Free upgrade to larger flats (upgrade by one room, max 5 room flat) with 3 or more children
Education:
(e) Primary 1 registration priority for children in families with 2 or more children
(f) Further subsidies for tertiary education: 2nd child to enrol in local tertiary education institutions pay half the fees, 3rdand subsequent child free
(g) Abolish PSLE to reduce stress, and the need to pay for supplementary classes for parents who can ill afford them
Others:
(h) Free delivery and hospitalisation for 3rd and subsequent child
(i) All benefits for children to similarly apply to single parents, not for economic reasons, but because we empathise and we care.
ii. Focus more on wage growth and overall quality of life rather than immediate economic growth:
(a) New citizens limited to under 10,000 per year
(b) Pause the growth in foreign workforce until productivity grows at more than 1.5% and public infrastructure has been expanded
(c) Uniform quota of 33% for S Pass and E Pass
(d) Higher Development Expenditure for Densely Populated Singapore
Hence, the trade-off will therefore continue to be the same for Singaporeans like what they have been experiencing in the last few years:
NSP said, “Contrary to its (PAP) claim, there is no sustainability in this plan. Even if we accept the PAP’s assurance that growing the population to 6.9m by 2030 will bring about greater prosperity for many Singaporeans, what happens after 2030? Grow the population some more?”
- higher population density
- overcrowded public spaces and infrastructure (which may be relieved if the government can keep to its development plans and schedule)
- unequal distribution of income
- limited resources being shared by more people
- higher asset prices
- higher COE
- higher cost of living
“Over the longer term, seeking productivity growth is still what we will have to come back to. We need to stop kicking the can further down the road.”
Hence, NSP said that it would like to offer Singaporeans an alternative plan, one which is more sustainable, focusing more on wage growth and overall quality of life rather than immediate economic growth.
NSP proposes to pause the relentless rapid growth in population, give time for Singaporeans to raise their fertility rate, a chance for lower income Singaporeans to level up their wages, and create the necessity for companies to innovate and to raise productivity, ultimately lifting everybody’s wages over the longer term.
Junior
https://www.facebook.com/notes/theon...51314175093964
Yet another year of negative real wage increase?
theonlinecitizen on Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 4:44am ·
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Foreign workforce growth slows significantly, local hiring rises sharply” (Channel NewsAsia, Jan 31).
Real median income growth?
It states that “The median monthly income from work, including employer CPF contributions, of full-time employed citizens rose over the year by 5.8 per cent to S$3,248 in 2012, down from the growth of 6.3 per cent in 2011.
Balanced by lower inflation, the real median income growth was 1.2 per cent in 2012, compared with 1 per cent in 2011.”
Negative real income growth – minus 2%
However according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Labour Force in Singapore2012, the median gross monthly income (excluding employer CPF) of full-time employed residents only increased from $2.925 in 2011 to $3,000 in 2012. This means that the real income growth was minus 2 per cent.
So, we have yet another year of negative real income growth, as it was negative in 2008, 2009, 2011 and was only 0.5 per cent in 2010.
I think we may need to seriously examine our policies as to why we don’t seem to be able to be get out of this persistent trap of “negative real wage growth”?
Almost 0% real income growth last decade?
Since the “the real income growth (including employer CPF) at the 20th percentile over the decade was flat, and that for the median was only 1.3 per cent per annum, how much lower was the real income growth excluding employer CPF?
Foreign employment growth 19% higher than locals?
As to “Local employment growth rose by 59,200, substantially higher than the gains of 37,900 in 2011.
The growth in foreign employment eased to 70,400 in 2012, compared with 84,800 in 2011″, the growth in foreign employment is still 19 per cent more than locals.
Breakdown jobs to citizens & PRs?
Also, since the number of new permanent residents (PRs) and new citizens is now at about 30,000 and 20,000 respectively a year, and considering that the population white paper projects 30,000 PRs and up to 25,000 new citizens a year going forward, we need the breakdown of the jobs growth for locals into Singaporeans and PRs.
If we can give the breakdown of the unemployed into Singaporeans and PRs, why can’t we do the same for employment growth?
With regard to “the decline in unemployment was also seen among residents from 2.8 per cent to 2.6 per cent, and among citizens from 3 per cent to 2.9 per cent”, does it mean that most of the unemployed are citizens relative to PRs?
Increase in discouraged workers?
“Some 9,600 or 0.5% of the resident labour force (inclusive of discouraged workers) were discouraged from seeking work in 2012, up from 8,600 or 0.4% in 2011.”
“The proportion of unemployed residents who had been looking for work for at least 25 weeks edged up from 19% in June 2011 to 20% in June 2012. The share of resident job seekers with unemployment duration of 15 to 24 weeks also rose from 13% to 14%.”
Older workers unemployed longer?
“Once out of work, mature residents tend to experience longer unemployment spells. The median duration of unemployment was 12 weeks for resident job seekers aged 50 & over and 11 weeks for those in their 40s, compared with 4 weeks for youths aged 15 to 24 and 6 weeks for those aged 25 to 29.”
Inactive mostly 60 & over?
“Around four in ten (38%) economically inactive residents in June 2012 were aged 60 & over, while another three in ten (32%) were youths aged 15 to 24. The proportion of those aged 60 & over (39%) and youths (46%) among economically inactive males was even higher, as the vast majority of prime-working age men participated in the labour market reflecting their traditional role as the main breadwinner within the household.”
More intend to work, but … ?
“Some 161,300 or 15.2% of economically inactive residents in 2012 intended to look for a job within the next two years, up from 153,600 or 14.4% in 2011.”
Degree holders highest incidence of intending to work?
Degree holders had the highest incidence at 36.7 per cent of resident potential entrants into the work force.
79,000 unemployed?
“The non-seasonally adjusted resident unemployment rate and number decreased over the year from 3.9% or 81,200 to 3.7% or 79,000.”
Service & Sales workers highest unemployment and vacancies?
Service and Sales workers continue to have the highest unemployment rate at 5.6 per cent, despite also having the highest vacancies rate.
Foreigners job growth much higher than locals?
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.
Lower PMET jobs growth?
“Resident non-PMET employment increased by 2.7% in 2012, faster than the growth of 1.5% for PMETs. Consequently, the PMET share of resident employment dipped from 52.2% in 2011 to 51.9% in 2012″, This may be significantly different from the annualised change from 2007 to 2012, which was 3.9 per cent for PMETs and 1.2 per cent for non-PMETs. – Does this mean that most of the jobs created now were non-PMET jobs, compared to the past?
Older get lower-pay jobs?
In respect of “Residents employed in lower-skilled jobs tended to be older, reflecting their weaker educational profile relative to those younger. Six in ten (61%) residents working as production & transport operators, cleaners & labourers in 2012 were aged 50 & over, compared with around three in ten (32%) among clerical, sales & service workers and two in ten (22%) for PMETs. The proportion of older workers was the highest among cleaners, labourers & related workers, where close to seven in ten (68%) employed residents were aged 50 & over. As a result, the median age of residents in this occupational group was 55 years, much higher than 42 years in the entire resident workforce” – Does this mean that there may be age discrimination in wages, particularly against lower-income workers?
The above may also be reinforced by “Nearly half of the employed residents in administrative & support services (49%), accommodation & food services (46%) and transportation & storage (44%) in 2012 were aged 50 & over, reflecting the higher reliance of non-PMETs in these industries”. - Does this indicate that most elderly workers end up in lower-income jobs in the lower-income sectors?
Older harder to stay in job?
“The proportion of resident employees who had been in their current job for at least a decade generally rose with age, reaching a high of 47% for those in their 50s before falling to 41% for those aged 60 & over.” – Does this mean that older workers may be finding it harder to keep their jobs?
Multiple job holders increase?
“Only a small minority or 2.2% (43,200) of employed residents held two or more jobs in 2012, though this increased from 1.8% in 2010 and 1.4% in 2002.14 Multiple job-holding was more prevalent among employed residents in their 40s (2.6%) and 50s (2.7%).” – Does this mean that more people had to take on multiple jobs in order to make ends meet?
Contract workers increase?
“The pool of contract workers increased slightly, amid more cautious business sentiments. 192,200 or 11.5% of resident employees were on term contracts in 2012, up slightly from 188,400 or 11.4% in 2011.”
3 in 10 worked more than 48 hours a week?
“Of every ten employed residents in 2012, six had usual weekly hours ranging from 35 to 48 hours. Another three typically worked long hours exceeding 48 hours a week, while the remaining one or 9.8% usually worked less than 35 hours a week.2.24.”
Older workers worked longer hours?
“Workers in their 40s and 50s were more likely to work long hours. Around one in three (34% and 32% respectively) usually clocked more than 48 hours per week. Their average (mean) usual hours worked for full-timers at 48.8 and 49.4 hours respectively were also higher than the norm of 48.2 hours per week.”
Degree holders and below-secondary worked longer hours?
Proportionately more residents at the two ends of the education spectrum namely degree holders (33%) and residents with below-secondary qualifications (32%) had usual hours exceeding 48 hours a week than those in the other education groups. In terms of average (mean) usual hours for full-timers, the below-secondary educated residents worked the longest at 50.4 hours per week while the degree holders had below-average hours worked at 47.5 hours per week.”
Less went for training?
“The average (mean) duration of training was shorter at 14 days per trainee in 2012 compared with 16 days in 2011. Consequently, the training intensity, derived by multiplying the average (mean) training days per trainee with the training participation rate, declined from 4.3 to 4.0 training days per adult in 2012.”
Less training for unemployed?
“The training participation rate declined for the small pool of unemployed from 16% to 14%. Coupled with the decline in their average training duration, the training intensity for the unemployed fell from 9.1 days per adult in 2011 to 3.9 days per adult in 2012.”
Few had pay rise after training?
“A smaller proportion of trainees indicated that training helped in their career advancement. Close to three in ten felt that the training gave them more job satisfaction (29%) and additional/new job responsibilities (27%). Considering that the impact of training on pay and promotion may not be immediate, only 13% reported receiving a pay rise and 8.7% a promotion that was related to the training that they undertook in the year.”
Global recession is coming....
Yes, tread carefully. They should wake up to their idea that 6.9m population is way too little for the good of Singapore! See below some comments:
Singapore's population shrinking from 2020 without immigrants. But what are the consequences of population decline?
IN A mere nine years' time, Singapore's funeral parlours will see more business than hospital maternity wards, if the country closes its doors to immigrants.
Without them, there will be more deaths than births among Singapore citizens and permanent residents (PRs) from 2020.
By 2050, the resident population will have shrunk to 3.03 million, from today's 3.77 million.
Merrill Lynch economist Chua Hak Bin says: 'Policymakers and economists have often found productivity gains to be rather elusive and difficult to engineer.' Meanwhile, Singapore still needs lower-end manufacturing and services sectors to provide jobs for less-skilled workers. Cities are 'hubs of innovation and ideas', says Dr Chua. 'Capitalising on the advantages from bringing talented folk from all walks together is what produces new ideas and economic gains.' 'Faced with a low and declining fertility rate, an overly restrictive immigration policy will threaten Singapore's growth, survival and existence,' he says.
Music of the night
Cm7 and 7m target means PAP is inviting u to buy the most ex prop u can afford then they will bring in another 1.7m ppl to help to shrink your debt.. Mai tu liao
Ride at your own risk !!!
Ultimate Underdog
Long term aim is never 6.9 mil. It is 8 mil.bro Seletar, are u trying to tell us that the population will be higher than 6.9 mil? and that we should start buying more?
Be prepared.
Newbie
Really have to commend on seletar efforts in collating and updating such news to us. Whatever his affiliations might be in terms of property prices - these articles serve to keep us better informed to the overall context of possible policies coming on board in the near future. Kudos for your efforts bro
Newbie
Wrong, 10 million.
Senior
Talk, talk, talk, so what if the population is 6.9,7.9,8.9,9.9.
If everyone can get a roof our their head they can have 6.9,7.9,8.9,9.9.
Problem is with all the talk, first you need to go for BTO, then wait 3 years.
If they can just give everyone who need a flat without going to BTO and wait 3 yrs then who care 6.9,7.9,8.9,9.9.
So what is 200,000 in 4 year 700,000 in 2030 when you still need to go BTO and wait 3 yrs.
In 1997 nobody complain with 10,000 unit of HDB unsold.
http://www.asiabuilders.com/asiabuil...try_code=conSG
Last edited by Arcachon; 02-02-13 at 22:14.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
