Myth 232 - Ageing population crisis

Demography expert, Professor Wolfgang Lutz declared that the negative effects of an ageing population have been blown out of proportion and argued that Singapore’s vast tertiary educated population core will counter the consequences of low replacement levels. So, have the Sinkies been fed with myth or deception, that there is a life time crisis because of this ageing population? The expert said otherwise.

I would like to add that the expert would have an even stronger case if he knows the real situation on the ground. Our highly educated seniors also have acquired a lot of wealth, a lot of savings and do not need charity except for the first batch of baby boomers where many were illiterate. Many from this batch have passed on and the younger baby boomers are more than able to take care of themselves. Then the Asian culture of looking after the elders, the family, will be there to support those that need support. And many will be economically active way past 70 with very few years to twiddle their thumbs and doing nothing. Bloody hell, some are even making millions in their 80s to provide for their grandchildren. What problem are they causing to society?

But one more serious consideration that no one seems to want to talk about. From 3m, our population has been pumped to 5.3m in something like 10 to 15 years. At replacement rate of 2.1% TFR, using simple arithmetic, the population should increase by 21% or 30% for the same period, ie to 3.6m or 3.9m. Round it up our population should be not much more than 4m today, but we have 5.3m! That is many times more than the replacement rate. We have over replaced haven’t we?

And for ramping it up to this number, shouldn’t more care be taken to minimize the ageing process with younger people? Or it is another case of just adding more senior citizens into the pool to aggravate the situation, to create a life time crisis? The flexibility to bring in more than 2m new people must have plenty of rooms to do the right thing, to avoid the ageing process and problems, not to add on to it.

Now, do I make any sense? Why bring it 2m people without solving the ageing problem and wanting to bring in another 1.6m people and hoping to solve the problem? Who is kidding?