Icestillwater
Senior Member
- Joined
 - Aug 5, 2023
 
- Messages
 - 645
 
- Reaction score
 - 283
 
Buy back Christmas Island at higher price lor
			
			SG had little to no control in the sales of Christmas Island as it was all made by the British Government. Singapore was given the money of the sales but had no power to stop nor negotiate the transfer. Still don't understand why this is brought up time and again.If sg never sell away Christmas Island, we would have land overseas and natural resources
Since when we projected a 10m population?There is only so much SG can reclaim land within the internationally recognised and accepted boundaries. There is also only so much population such land can accommodate. Assuming SG can gradually increase population beyond the projected 10M to approx.15M (as an example purely for discussion purpose) with a controlled yet near optimised manner to benefit the economy and provide fairly balanced comfort to the general population. After that what‘s next?
In addition, doing this intensive increase in population within this limited land, any screw ups will have significant impact on the population living the country. How will the people react? Will the people hold the government responsible? And in what manners?
End of the day, there is so much land the population can live on. One fine day, we have to face the reality that the country will need more land. The issue then is when will we have the political will to face this issue squarely and objectively.
Or will the world move beyond the concept of “countries?
overly simplistic solution with little to no consideration to ppl living within. As i said, there is only so much we can reclaim and build which include intensifying land use without drastically affecting the balance on comfort. Yes, if we push to the extreme we can build upwards with no care on comfort and just ensure meeting KPIs and earning more money. This is not the way SG should move forward in terms of development, imo.Just build taller buildings.
everyone can denounce it officially to avoid all the negative feedbacks, but signs are pointing towards that direction, imo.Since when we projected a 10m population?![]()
The polder seems a good way to expand land massunderground
10m is a 66% increase from now. I dun know what signs are pointing to thateveryone can denounce it officially to avoid all the negative feedbacks, but signs are pointing towards that direction, imo.
but need to sacrifice sea area. i think still early to tell if suitable for SG.The polder seems a good way to expand land mass
you are looking at official residents number to base that 66%10m is a 66% increase from now. I dun know what signs are pointing to that
singapore no need the sea... we need the land!but need to sacrifice sea area. i think still early to tell if suitable for SG.
Dun get what you mean. Current 6 million population already include majority of these except touristsyou are looking at official residents number to base that 66%
but if we include tourists, FDWs and FWs, FTs, i think the increase will be smaller
overly simplistic solution with little to no consideration to ppl living within. As i said, there is only so much we can reclaim and build which include intensifying land use without drastically affecting the balance on comfort. Yes, if we push to the extreme we can build upwards with no care on comfort and just ensure meeting KPIs and earning more money. This is not the way SG should move forward in terms of development, imo.
the official answers and reported figures are pointing towards approx. 6.9-7M population. Masterplanning information are supporting it.10m is a 66% increase from now. I dun know what signs are pointing to that
Islands have already dissapeared in some SEA countries because of Singapore. It most certainly has ways of buying land from other countries.Buy land overseas? But no country will sell it as sovereign land
Merge as special economic zones? Feasible, like the jb sg sez