Look for increase in more immigration - CNA report
-
Frankly, I find it hard to accept this study without considering the possibility of confirmation bias.
In other words, the study may just be setting out to justify whatever the people behind it already believe in, i.e. the belief that increased immigration is necessary.
This part of the article is especially telling:
Research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, Leong Chan-Hoong, said that the data does not provide any information regarding PRs.
He said: "The data does not provide any information regarding the influx or projected intake of permanent residents. The number of new citizens is actually quite small vis a vis the number of new PRs. So the PRs actually take up a significant component of the new migrants so it would be more helpful if we have information about what kind of projection we are looking at."In other words, by their own admission, the current and projected influx of new PRs has not been accounted for even though this is a really significant factor in the study.
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
Frankly, I find it hard to accept this study without considering the possibility of confirmation bias.
In other words, the study may just be setting out to justify whatever the people behind it already believe in, i.e. the belief that increased immigration is necessary.
This part of the article is especially telling:
Research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, Leong Chan-Hoong, said that the data does not provide any information regarding PRs.
He said: "The data does not provide any information regarding the influx or projected intake of permanent residents. The number of new citizens is actually quite small vis a vis the number of new PRs. So the PRs actually take up a significant component of the new migrants so it would be more helpful if we have information about what kind of projection we are looking at."In other words, by their own admission, the current and projected influx of new PRs has not been accounted for even though this is a really significant factor in the study.
The study is for people who are stupid enough to believe anything, including its circular logic.
The rest of us can't be won over so they're not even trying.
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
Frankly, I find it hard to accept this study without considering the possibility of confirmation bias.
In other words, the study may just be setting out to justify whatever the people behind it already believe in, i.e. the belief that increased immigration is necessary.
This part of the article is especially telling:
Research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, Leong Chan-Hoong, said that the data does not provide any information regarding PRs.
He said: "The data does not provide any information regarding the influx or projected intake of permanent residents. The number of new citizens is actually quite small vis a vis the number of new PRs. So the PRs actually take up a significant component of the new migrants so it would be more helpful if we have information about what kind of projection we are looking at."In other words, by their own admission, the current and projected influx of new PRs has not been accounted for even though this is a really significant factor in the study.
The study is simply flawed! There are many other factors to consider in the whole equation. The assumptions ar e also flawed! But it certainly serves a political purpose. It is like when they tell you that in all their statistics PRs are considered TOGETHER WITH SINGAPOREANS under one catagory. So they go on and say actually foreigners do not account for the increase demand and sales of property but actually it is locals that are buying up properties. BUT "their " definition of locals meaning PRs are included. Or they say Singaporeans are the ones buying high end properties and landed properties these days as foreigner can't buy. But the Singapore citizen could be some Tng swah rich bug from China who had just paid for a Sentosa bungalow which included a citizenship thrown in, and therefore now as a NEW Singapore citizen there is nothing stopping him from speculating inland whether landed or condos! and they also convenient forget to tell you tha tforeigners can't buy outright landed properties BUT they can apply for permission to buy.,and if granted they do buy! -
Life is surreal.
One day we may wake up and find that everything is all gone.
No more cai png.
-
And may I add, no more luncheon meat.
-
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
they never understand there is a limit to everything. This is a small island and to crammed that many and continue to increase is a disaster waiting to happen.
It is already a disaster with all the macham macham type of people irritating one another everywhere...but you see - these people who live in elephant trunk towers don't have to face it everyday so talk is so cheap wha t to do? and now to "force the number" 25,000 new Singaporeans each year, I really can't imagine the kind of people they will be giving these discounted citizenship coupons to....( shake head) -
The keyword for 2012 is "UNAVOIDABLE".
Inflation, breakdown, ponding and population explosion.
Every one already know that we are facing an population crunch.
But, can the policy maker make an paradigm change in terms of making good use of the tax payer money insteading of packing the place into 3rd world situation ?
It is not possible when you see them continue to overload the place with more foreigners and becoming deaf to what the local is saying.
They are just cooking statistics and study in their favour to boost their bonus.
-
sorry to say.....i foresee more water from the water dragon...
-
Originally posted by Bikeforceful:
The study is simply flawed! There are many other factors to consider in the whole equation. The assumptions ar e also flawed! But it certainly serves a political purpose. It is like when they tell you that in all their statistics PRs are considered TOGETHER WITH SINGAPOREANS under one catagory. So they go on and say actually foreigners do not account for the increase demand and sales of property but actually it is locals that are buying up properties. BUT "their " definition of locals meaning PRs are included. Or they say Singaporeans are the ones buying high end properties and landed properties these days as foreigner can't buy. But the Singapore citizen could be some Tng swah rich bug from China who had just paid for a Sentosa bungalow which included a citizenship thrown in, and therefore now as a NEW Singapore citizen there is nothing stopping him from speculating inland whether landed or condos! and they also convenient forget to tell you tha tforeigners can't buy outright landed properties BUT they can apply for permission to buy.,and if granted they do buy!It is quite clear that some of you failed to comprehend that Mr Leong was not part of the study and that the criticism he levelled at the study was far from subtle in fact.
Besides.
The study might be biased.
And why not?
But if you feel that you can do a study better with the given resources that you can have....you can try.
You won't be more convincing I assure you.
Why?
You will have to find that out for yourself since I have tried. And concluded that the thesis I'll do is not likely to be related to data on Singapore.
Care to take up this challenge?
-
Considering the productivity that he have given and the talent that he have brought forward, the lizard king should be more appropriate.
When the shit strike, the lizard king is nowhere to be found.
The more I read the COI for the train, the more I laugh at how things are well packaged with lots of rotten eggs underneath.
They may be regretting soon that they have dug out so much hard truth.
Can the Lizard King handle so much truth or he too busy telling his new FB pals what he ate for supper ?
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
It is quite clear that some of you failed to comprehend that Mr Leong was not part of the study and that the criticism he levelled at the study was far from subtle in fact.
Besides.
The study might be biased.
And why not?
But if you feel that you can do a study better with the given resources that you can have....you can try.
You won't be more convincing I assure you.
Why?
You will have to find that out for yourself since I have tried. And concluded that the thesis I'll do is not likely to be related to data on Singapore.
Care to take up this challenge?
Let me assure you that some of us do understand what is being presented and also the coments/conditional exclusion stated by Leong. But I think most people have become very skeptical of such surveys/study presented, as they often do tend to serve a purpose obviously. And that is alright of course, and so are counter criticisms! Depending on the statistics and figures and assumptions one chooses, different consequential results can be elicited to justify polices to be adapted. As to your challenge to do a survey, it is typical of how the government once used to challenge well meaning critics to stand for elections rather than being in an armchair. Well, my answer to that is : We have all our own different roles to play, to improve the system, lest it becomes tardy like the MRT lines! -
Originally posted by Lazybumy:
Just doing what most the singaporean doing. Afterall most singaporean keep complaining abt the samething like a broken record and yet when the G.E come, they still give the elites the mandate.These people are Sickaporeans not Singaporeans.
-
Hope less mrt breakdowns.
-
If 25,000 new citizens every year, that means in 5 years' time, there will be 125,000 new citizens.
Can this number make up for the % lost in votes in next ge?
-
125,000 of 2,000,000 voters is about 6%.
-
My prediction.Without the GRC system they will ver yquickily lose the 2/3 majority . Bjut if they continue in the current mode and import more people...easily another 3 or 4 seats will be lost! Of course it depends on howmany seats the Opposition contest.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
125,000 of 2,000,000 voters is about 6%.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa now u expert -
Originally posted by lce:
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa now u expertHow hard is it to calculate percentage?
-
You are impressed too easily.
-
they the govt or rather the ruling party,wants to bring in more foreigners,they can do it but what can the ordinary people do?nothing!then in order to justify their actions they just ask some associate professor to give some data about aging population!same goes to the minimum wage,they don't want to implement then bring up excuses of productivity!see other South East Asian countries like Malaysia,Indonesia,Philippines and Thailand can implement minimum wage cos thegovt there willing!
-
Originally posted by Bikeforceful:
Let me assure you that some of us do understand what is being presented and also the coments/conditional exclusion stated by Leong. But I think most people have become very skeptical of such surveys/study presented, as they often do tend to serve a purpose obviously. And that is alright of course, and so are counter criticisms! Depending on the statistics and figures and assumptions one chooses, different consequential results can be elicited to justify polices to be adapted. As to your challenge to do a survey, it is typical of how the government once used to challenge well meaning critics to stand for elections rather than being in an armchair. Well, my answer to that is : We have all our own different roles to play, to improve the system, lest it becomes tardy like the MRT lines!You missed my point.
But its ok.
Its only to be expected from one who hasn't done any such under-takings before.
Contrary to popular belief, it is actually possible for the general public to do their own studies. Information is available to do that.
You dont have to do your own survey to do that. You can use the govt's survey. There is little reason to believe that those are flawed. Simply because there are techniques in masking data. You just have to know what they are, and then work around the problem. It might affect accuracy. But that can be mitigated by controlling for regression effects.
My challenge still stands.
I've just done a research on the affordability of housing (first-time buyers) and it stands in agreement with the government's assessment.
But it doesn't mean that I agree with what they are doing.
Numbers do not lie. But interpretations do differ greatly.
To illustrate, just a 1 minute job of taking data from govt websites and then using Excel gives you something to ponder on already with regards to inequality here.
If I, as a member of public, can generate this kind of income-decile graph, from "official (read "corrupted PAP") govt website", what excuse do you have in bashing and what not without looking through the primary sources used on your own?
-
Originally posted by foolsh_2000:
they the govt or rather the ruling party,wants to bring in more foreigners,they can do it but what can the ordinary people do?nothing!then in order to justify their actions they just ask some associate professor to give some data about aging population!same goes to the minimum wage,they don't want to implement then bring up excuses of productivity!see other South East Asian countries like Malaysia,Indonesia,Philippines and Thailand can implement minimum wage cos thegovt there willing!
go read M'sia's minimum wageThere's nothing wrong until you realise happens so cost of cooking oil and etc dictated by KL govt is higher in East Malaysia, yet the minimum wage is lower for East Malaysia vs West Malaysia..
it's all politics la
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
You missed my point.
But its ok.
Its only to be expected from one who hasn't done any such under-takings before.
Contrary to popular belief, it is actually possible for the general public to do their own studies. Information is available to do that.
You dont have to do your own survey to do that. You can use the govt's survey. There is little reason to believe that those are flawed. Simply because there are techniques in masking data. You just have to know what they are, and then work around the problem. It might affect accuracy. But that can be mitigated by controlling for regression effects.
My challenge still stands.
I've just done a research on the affordability of housing (first-time buyers) and it stands in agreement with the government's assessment.
But it doesn't mean that I agree with what they are doing.
Numbers do not lie. But interpretations do differ greatly.
To illustrate, just a 1 minute job of taking data from govt websites and then using Excel gives you something to ponder on already with regards to inequality here.
If I, as a member of public, can generate this kind of income-decile graph, from "official (read "corrupted PAP") govt website", what excuse do you have in bashing and what not without looking through the primary sources used on your own?
You have to much time to waste. what a duh! -
So that's all you have to say in response to my challenge?
You think that I have the time to sieve out information and know what's there to know.
Because you do not want to have the time, but to be sceptical of everything others around you have to say.
It takes only 1 minute to copy and paste data and click "Insert Line" on Excel.
That's sad.
Do check out singstat websites though...as well as data reports (if you can) with regards to Singapore.
It might surprise you.
Nah. Doubt you would even bother trying.
Its far easier to be an arm-chair critic like you.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
They dun get it.
Seriously whenever I’m outside sometimes I do see there are things that simply do not need so many manpower to do the job but ends up ppl still employ so many foreigners for it.
many many people IN A SMALL DOT meANT TO FUEL:1) THE PUB BILLS EVERY MONTH
2)GST EVERY MINUTE
3)CRIME RATES THAT NEED LAWYERS
4)FUEL NTUC FOOD PRICE HIKES
5)FUEL HDB RENT PAYMENT EVERY MONTH
THE ABOVE ARE JUST A FEW THINGS THAT MANY PEOPLE COULD BENEFIT THE GOV AND NOT AVERAGE HUMANS.