Ask an economist and the answer is growth
The debate for more population is heating up but the thinking is one track, growth. Without population growth, it will be the end of the Singapore story. Growth is the essence of an economics approach to the country’s problem, or for that matter to any other problems. Send Pavarotti to the economists and the recommendation will be 5% growth annually. Send a yoda to an economist and it will be the same answer, feed the yoda to ensure 5% growth.
Is growth really the solution, or can innovation and productivity be the alternatives? There are many ways to maintain or better the life of the people instead of growth. Under this economics theory of growth, any country, including Singapore, will see its ruin without growth. The realities around the world proved that this is the biggest bullshit.
If the well being of any country is simply to maintain growth through population growth, many countries would have been wiped out from the face of the earth, and many countries with high population growth would have been the most prosperous and with better standard of living.
Can anyone come up with a smarter answer, with so much being paid to feed them for their personal growth? If we go on a path of unstopping population growth, we are as good as feeding ourselves to death. Maybe that is better than dying from starvation. The limitations of our physical size are staring down at us. Why don’t they look at how to improve the life of the people by maintaining the population size as the breaking point is appearing everywhere, even with the creme ala crème in charge?
Did anyone ask why Pavarotti had to die? Has anyone asked why every yoda cannot keep growing by feeding him more and more? It is nature’s way to terminating those who want to grow and grow. Countries are not different in the area of population growth. Unrestraint population growth is a sure way to self destruct faster.
No wonder they don't believe in no salary increment.