Khaw Boon Wan: You can have a larger population & better quality of life — 31 Jan 2013
Supply and Demand Determine Price:The Laws of Demand and Supply —
The rate of growth in population > the rate of supply of homes = Increase in priceLook ahead to 10 million people by 2100? — 28 Apr 2013
Singapore calls for 30% population growth — 29 Jan 2013
Population — Why Stop At 6.5 Million? — 21 Oct 2012
Singapore can, if it wants, accommodate 8 million people — 8 Oct 2012
The Next Lap (1991):1.
Master Plan 20082.
MM: 5.5 million for Singapore3.
PM: We can afford 6 million4.
Why we need 6.5 million people5.
7.5 million population: what it means for Chek Jawa and Ubin6.
Population in brief 2012The Next Lap liesBy Wong Hwee Lin
October 1, 2012
I was browsing through the book “The Next Lap”, published in 1991 by The Government of Singapore, which was when Goh Chok Tong was at helm, and noted several discrepancies between what was planned in the 1990s and the reality on the grounds 20 years after its publication. I would like to share with you on the information on the followings that I found:
(1) Projected population of 4 million people in 1991 for the next 20 – 30 yearsIn 1991, our population was projected for 4 million people, 50% more than the then population of 3.1 million (Source: Singapore Department of Statistics). In “The Next Lap”, it was stated that “…we can comfortably house 4 million people, 50 per cent more than now, and still improve our quality of life.” (pg 24 in The Next Lap).
Twenty years later, our population stands at 5.3 million. A huge contradiction to Lee Hsien Loong’s vision of “6 million or so” for the future and “6 million or so” is a 100 % increase of our population in 1991.
Interestingly, it was perceived in 1991 that 4 million people allowed possible improvement of quality of life. This vision did not materialize as our current 5.3 million population has already slashed our quality in terms of infrastructure. It is terrifying to think of the damage with a further 2 million people as Lee Hsien Loong’s “6 million or so” might translate into 6.9 million people.
Other than the reduced quality of living, it also evidenced the short-sightedness of our government of our population growth. 20 years down the road, the 1991 vision of 4 million was retracted and in place is a projection of “6 million or so” people, exposing the little idea that our government, led by the same political party for 50 years, has. They have no concrete idea on the size of the population needed to beef up GDP figures and profit margins.
(2) MRT system planned for 4 million populationThe population mishap proves that all existing infrastructure was meant to cater for a population of 4 million. Today, our population stands at 5.3 and it is still growing towards 6 million or so.
Our MRT system in 1991 was thus planned for 4 million. The 5 million population in 2011 has already strained our MRT system leading to the massive break down in 2011. Current public transport is already struggling. It is still to be seen how it would cope with a 6 million population, and not taking into account the additional one million tourists and growing medical tourists on our island each month. We have to think of the no. of cars on the road and the amount of pollution caused as they constitute part of quality life.
Although reactionary measures such as another hospital, more BTO flats and public transport fleet are on the way, it only serves to bare the ill-thought vision back in 1991. It gives me little confidence of the vision which Lee Hsien Loong is crafting now.
“The Next Lap” was a written outline of a “programme to make Singapore more prosperous, gracious and interesting over the next 20 to 30 years” (quoted from the The Next Lap, Foreword–Beyond 1999, Pg 13). It was a vision of Goh Chok Tong’s Singapore in 20 – 30 years’ time. It is interesting to note the discrepancies between his vision then and what actually took place 20 years later. The discrepancies are even more significant at a juncture when our country is in the stage of crafting a new vision, led by PM Lee Hsien Loong through the tool of National Conversation.
Would the vision of “6 million or so” population change into 8 million or so five years down the road?"The Next Lap (2013 to 2030)" — Singapore's projected population growth =
7.5 million people Plan for Pulau Ubin, Chek Jawa and Pulau Tekong:Massive reclamation at Pulau Tekong"S'pore's ideal population: How about 30 million?By Eddie Lee
Jan 21, 2004
WHEN former senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow spoke candidly about policy mistakes in his speech to the Economic Society of Singapore last week, it reminded me of another occasion when one of the most famous economists of the 20th century, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, made a frank admission.
In an interview with the Financial Times half a year ago, he conceded that he was mistaken in his belief that the supply of money was the key determinant of economic growth and inflation. Where he used to advocate that governments needed to ensure a stable and adequate supply of money in order to sustain growth, he now admitted that it 'had not been a success'. 'I'm not sure I would push it as hard as I once did,' he said.
In the early 1980s, many countries set targets for money-supply growth. The common aim was to bring down inflation. There was some success: inflation did ease during the 1980s, but it came at the cost of high unemployment. Governments eventually gave up. Not only did it prove difficult to hit the target, but there was also no way to predict accurately its influence on the economy even when the target was hit.
The preference today is to set a target for the rate of inflation. The belief is that a low and stable inflation rate is conducive to long-term economic growth. That's why central banks get paranoid when the inflation rate starts to rise.
Economists, as Mr Ngiam noted, are forever searching for that holy grail of equilibrium. It has proved elusive because the workings of an economy are rich in complexity.
To my mind, one factor that Mr Friedman didn't consider, and which Mr Ngiam brushed side, is an economy's population.
It has not always been that way. In the 18th century, economist Thomas Malthus thought it a key factor. He observed that while technological progress did improve living standards by raising productivity, that improvement was only temporary. Technological progress triggered faster population growth, which brought income levels back to subsistence levels.
Indeed, until the 19th century, economic history saw little improvement in living standards. The introduction of high-yielding crops and new technologies in agriculture was accompanied by vast increases in population, with little or no increase in living standards.
Income gaps between countries were fairly small, and even by the early 19th century, the 'advanced' European countries enjoyed real income levels only about double those found in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Then came the Industrial Revolution. Rapid technological change led to both an increase in the population and living standards. The Malthusian trap was sprung, at least among the industrialised economies, and population pressure was no longer seen as a barrier to rising living standards.
Developing countries like Singapore, however, still worried about the adverse effects of population growth even in the 1960s. Hence its stop-at-two population policy. Today, Singapore is into the information age. Technological change is accelerating but, like in many developed economies, its population will start to decline.
What does the crystal ball say?
Accelerated technological change promises faster growth. On the other hand, a shrinking population will reduce growth. Raising the average level of education, as Mr Ngiam and many others suggest, could counter the shrinkage in population.
But is that enough in the information age? China and India are abundant in human capital, not just because they have a larger population, but also because they have entered what demographers call the demographic 'gift' phase, which is characterised by a rapid increase in the proportion of the population that is of working age.
The more advanced countries of East Asia, like Singapore, witnessed such a phase from the mid-1960s to mid-1990s when the ratio of workers to dependents leapt from around 1.3 to 2.1.
Such an increase took nearly a century in the Western countries, but Asia took a shorter time because infant mortality dropped dramatically thanks to medical science. This 'gift' is now passing to countries like China and India.
Where Singapore is concerned, education can only 'upgrade' its human capital so far. The only other alternative is to increase its population pool - rapidly. What is the magic number - four, five, six million? Actually, these may not even come close.
Suppose the current support ratio of 10 is the ideal one, that is, 10 working-age adults to every dependent aged over 65 years. This expected to fall to three by 2025. How many Singaporeans should there be in 2025 to keep it at 10?
Here's a clue. Like Singapore, South Korea has one of the fastest ageing populations in the world, with a potential support ratio projected to fall to four by 2025 from 12.6 in 1995. According to the United Nations, in order to maintain South Korea's potential support ratio at 12.6, it would be necessary to have a total of around 400 million immigrants from 1995 through to 2025 to add to the indigenous population.
Under this scenario, South Korea needs a total population of 523 million in 2025. Its current population? Just 50 million. You do your own guesstimates for Singapore.