Apr 28, 2012
Todayonline
Letter from Andrew Teo Neng Wee
I READ the report "Which path to take?" (April 25) with interest. However, I spotted two fallacies in the argument for more immigrants.
Firstly, the National Population and Talent Division stated that by 2030, without new citizens and the total fertility rate remaining at 1.2, there would be 2.1 working-age citizens to each elderly citizen.
To use only this ratio, instead of the generally-accepted "working-age to non-working age population" ratio, is flawed.
Children, too, need to be supported, not just the elderly.
[Which will make the ratio worse, so your point?]
With a higher fertility rate, resources would be needed to support children.
[The scenario is if fertility rates remain at 1.2. So what higher fertility rate would this be?]
Moreover, with a better educated, more productive and well-informed population, by 2030, our elderly would not only be more able to support themselves in retirement, they should be able to contribute positively to our gross domestic product.
[Yes, there will be more active seniors, and many will self-supporting or even still employed or earning an income. But will ALL our elderly be able to support themselves? MOST will not. CPF balances in members account show that more than half will not have enough for retirement. Some will be able to defer their retirement, but how many 75-yr-old taxi drivers do you think should be allowed to meander along our roads? Or bus drivers? What jobs are "elder-friendly"? ]
While I could accept the argument that new immigrants are necessary to replace the shortfall in population growth, I cannot accept the reasoning for the increase in new immigrants based on "working-age citizens to each elderly citizen".
[Then don't. You don't have to accept anything because there is no argument. This is 5 scenarios based on assumptions about natural population growth (TFR of 1.2 or 2.1). In any case, if the working age to elderly doesn't work for you, then the working age to non-working age (including children) would make an even stronger "argument" for the need for immigrants. You are either arguing simply for the sake of arguing, or you don't even know what your are "arguing" for.]
Secondly, new immigrants do not guarantee an increase in the fertility rate. In fact, it might go the opposite way. New citizens would be assimilated into Singapore's pace and way of life.
[So who said that the new immigrants are supposed to raise the fertility rate? You don't even understand the scenarios or the assumptions of the scenario planning exercise, or I suspect, even the purpose of immigration. If the intent is that the new immigrants are supposed to increase TFR, then the TFR should start at 1.2 and slowly rise as the number of immigrants increase and pull it up. The 4 scenarios simply held TFR at 1.2. ]
The greatest reason for our fertility rate dropping like leaves in autumn is our pursuit of success and money.
[We have no autumn in Singapore. ]
We are simply delaying the inevitable and may be making the situation worse in the years to come.
It is better to keep our population growth lower and more manageable, as a high influx in new immigrants would cause inflation and a strain on housing, transport, education and healthcare.
Instead of taking the easy path by having more new immigrants, why do we not focus on our native population?
We should continue to find ways to increase our fertility rate and, at the same time, make our workforce more productive.
["Continue to find ways"? you mean we have found ways? If you're going to veer into simplistic suggestions (without concrete proposals), why don't you just say, "we should develop a proprietary renewable energy source that we can export to the rest of the world and make big bucks while saving the world from global climate change as a result of carbon-poisoning our planet." And "We should develop the Next Big Thing so that our products can dominate the world market just like the iPhone and the iPad."]
Most importantly, we need to make Singapore a better place to live.
[Singapore is a great place to live. Why do you think so many immigrants want to come here? ]
It is now overpopulated, and it would be more challenging if there is an increase in new immigrants.
We must learn from highly developed nations, such as those in Scandinavia, those with high quality of life, slower pace, reasonably high wages and modest GDP growth. This is the population model to adopt.
[When you have found a way for Singapore to be as big in land mass as those countries, with that much history, and surrounded by neighbours equally able and wealthy, and arrange for a temperate climate, adequate water supply and other natural resources, then we talk. OK? Otherwise talking about their "population model" in isolation is just... you know what? You should just move there.]
Todayonline
Letter from Andrew Teo Neng Wee
I READ the report "Which path to take?" (April 25) with interest. However, I spotted two fallacies in the argument for more immigrants.
Firstly, the National Population and Talent Division stated that by 2030, without new citizens and the total fertility rate remaining at 1.2, there would be 2.1 working-age citizens to each elderly citizen.
To use only this ratio, instead of the generally-accepted "working-age to non-working age population" ratio, is flawed.
Children, too, need to be supported, not just the elderly.
[Which will make the ratio worse, so your point?]
With a higher fertility rate, resources would be needed to support children.
[The scenario is if fertility rates remain at 1.2. So what higher fertility rate would this be?]
Moreover, with a better educated, more productive and well-informed population, by 2030, our elderly would not only be more able to support themselves in retirement, they should be able to contribute positively to our gross domestic product.
[Yes, there will be more active seniors, and many will self-supporting or even still employed or earning an income. But will ALL our elderly be able to support themselves? MOST will not. CPF balances in members account show that more than half will not have enough for retirement. Some will be able to defer their retirement, but how many 75-yr-old taxi drivers do you think should be allowed to meander along our roads? Or bus drivers? What jobs are "elder-friendly"? ]
While I could accept the argument that new immigrants are necessary to replace the shortfall in population growth, I cannot accept the reasoning for the increase in new immigrants based on "working-age citizens to each elderly citizen".
[Then don't. You don't have to accept anything because there is no argument. This is 5 scenarios based on assumptions about natural population growth (TFR of 1.2 or 2.1). In any case, if the working age to elderly doesn't work for you, then the working age to non-working age (including children) would make an even stronger "argument" for the need for immigrants. You are either arguing simply for the sake of arguing, or you don't even know what your are "arguing" for.]
Secondly, new immigrants do not guarantee an increase in the fertility rate. In fact, it might go the opposite way. New citizens would be assimilated into Singapore's pace and way of life.
[So who said that the new immigrants are supposed to raise the fertility rate? You don't even understand the scenarios or the assumptions of the scenario planning exercise, or I suspect, even the purpose of immigration. If the intent is that the new immigrants are supposed to increase TFR, then the TFR should start at 1.2 and slowly rise as the number of immigrants increase and pull it up. The 4 scenarios simply held TFR at 1.2. ]
The greatest reason for our fertility rate dropping like leaves in autumn is our pursuit of success and money.
[We have no autumn in Singapore. ]
We are simply delaying the inevitable and may be making the situation worse in the years to come.
It is better to keep our population growth lower and more manageable, as a high influx in new immigrants would cause inflation and a strain on housing, transport, education and healthcare.
Instead of taking the easy path by having more new immigrants, why do we not focus on our native population?
We should continue to find ways to increase our fertility rate and, at the same time, make our workforce more productive.
["Continue to find ways"? you mean we have found ways? If you're going to veer into simplistic suggestions (without concrete proposals), why don't you just say, "we should develop a proprietary renewable energy source that we can export to the rest of the world and make big bucks while saving the world from global climate change as a result of carbon-poisoning our planet." And "We should develop the Next Big Thing so that our products can dominate the world market just like the iPhone and the iPad."]
Most importantly, we need to make Singapore a better place to live.
[Singapore is a great place to live. Why do you think so many immigrants want to come here? ]
It is now overpopulated, and it would be more challenging if there is an increase in new immigrants.
We must learn from highly developed nations, such as those in Scandinavia, those with high quality of life, slower pace, reasonably high wages and modest GDP growth. This is the population model to adopt.
[When you have found a way for Singapore to be as big in land mass as those countries, with that much history, and surrounded by neighbours equally able and wealthy, and arrange for a temperate climate, adequate water supply and other natural resources, then we talk. OK? Otherwise talking about their "population model" in isolation is just... you know what? You should just move there.]
1 comment:
Gee, love your respond :) Make my day.
Post a Comment