Contorted justifications for bigger population

The arguments put forth by Professor Ng Yew Kwang at the seminar on the Population White Paper were at best elementary. Any A level students would be able to come up with better reasons than those put up at the seminar. I was reluctant to waste my time on this but with the main media giving it so much coverage as if that view was a good and reasonable view, I would thus offer my two cents worth to join in the talk cock session. I would not put in too much effort as it is really a waste of time. So I will just talk about the few points printed in the media.

  

 .Having a large population may not necessarily be bad, as it could lead to better developed infrastructure and employment opportunities.

Who doesn’t know this? The problem is the will to provide the infrastructure and what is a large population given a limited space available.  At 5.3m, we are now living through the unhealthy aspects of space constraints and inadequate infrastructure. And the fact that the population has gone up dramatically over the last 10 years, the question to ask in response to 1 above is why aren’t the infrastructure be better developed? It cannot be due to ignorance of the lack of talent or the lack of foresight. It is elementary. The truth is that large population would not automatically lead to better developed infrastructure or adequate infrastructure.

As for employment opportunities, the question is for who? We have several hundred thousand foreign PMETs here gainfully employed but our locals, the young graduates and the older PMETs, are either unemployed or under employed. So what is the point of creating more employment opportunities for foreigners when our own citizens are not gainfully employed? I say, keep your employment opportunities if it is not to benefit the citizens.

2.   With a smaller population there would be correspondingly fewer roads and lower bus and train frequencies. The degree of competition between companies would also be less.

Let me answer the second part. With the number of transport companies we have, is there any real competition? Even if we add in a couple more, would there be real competition? Come on, let’s not kid ourselves and be an ivory tower academic.

Smaller population therefore fewer roads and bus and train frequencies. Agree. Bigger population would mean the other way. Also agree. The issue is not how many more or how many less but what is adequate or sufficient or what is comfortable for a good quality service and life style. Over providing is bad and under providing is equally bad. Bigger population with more bus and trains and higher frequencies may not be enough. Lesser population with lesser of the same may be more than enough. See the picture? The argument is quite stupid isn’t it?

3.   Through immigration, these issues would be addressed and entrepreneurial migrants would set up businesses that create hiring opportunities.

Really? We can see how inadequate our infrastructure is today with the influx of immigrants. It simply means that immigration is not the answer but something else. And only immigrants have entrepreneurial skills, can set up businesses? Bullshit lah. You mean there are no entrepreneurs among the locals?  And not all the new businesses are desirable or could complement the economy to better the quality of living here.

4.   These migrants would also “provide locally unavailable skills which make certain business ventures possible”.

Such ventures could be provided by some migrants, but the real stuff is provided by the MNCs, the big corporations, not migrants. True or not?

I think I have said enough on this seminar. One thing comes out very clearly, that the professor was looking at one side of the coin and totally ignoring the negative side that comes with high population. There are many negative consequences, bad consequences and social and political costs to pay for. So are the environment and the quality of life for having so many people squeezed into this small piece of rock, higher cost of living and stressful competition for jobs, goods and services.

To be a fair and serious piece of work or recommendations, both merits and demerits must be put out for airing for people to have an informed view of what is good or bad, or which is better.

KNN.