When we were all Sinkies

There was a time when we were all Sinkies, some like to call themselves Singaporeans. Every Sinkie was equal in many ways. The males got thrown into the back of 3 tonners and taken to some God forsaken place they had never been in their lives, put on some green uniforms and went charging up Pengkang Hill, with gusto, sleeping in grave yards and in the mud, under rain or shine. There were complaints of tough training and all, $90 allowance and meals that were churned out by cooks that barely knew how to boil water. They were lucky when the Inche in the cook house did the real cooking to have something nicer to fill their stomach. But they went home and slept well. They were later discharged after completing their NS, ROD and so happy.

They accepted their duties to serve the country, to die for the country. Many unfortunate parents did not see their sons any more. They gave up their lives for the country while training to defend the country. Some came back unrecognizable, with parts of the body missing. And many continue to serve the country as reservists. There were still complaints, but all took them in their stride. They were NS men, the country and the people depended on them should the day come for them to be at the front line.

Those were the days when everyone was a citizen, and everyone was equal.

Today they are still serving NS but less equal than foreigners that are called FTs and PRs, or new citizens. While they are slogging in the fields, in the jungles, in some foreign lands, the foreigners are taking over their jobs, some even taking over their wives and girlfriends or girls that could have been their wives. Foreigners who took up citizenships need not serve NS but got all the perks and handouts like the NSmen and the native citizens. And foreigners could even be ahead of the queue for public housing. And many of these shitty NSmen are not even eligible to buy a public housing flat. And they are to protect the country, the new citizens and the PRs and what not.

Why are the NSmen not complaining, or why are they complaining? Why are they feeling disillusioned or cheated, short changed, or being less equal in their country compare to new citizens and PRs? Why are the NSmen angry?

Why like that?

An ageing population is a triumph of development.

‘We should stop seeing elderly Singaporeans as just a drain on our economy and as a hindrance to our goal to keep Singapore dynamic. Older Singaporeans have much to offer us, and not all of it can be measured in economic terms.

In fact, our elderly Singaporeans are essential to maintaining a Singapore core. Older Singaporeans are custodians of culture and, as some have suggested, can be employed in schools to teach subjects such as social studies and national education, or encouraged to volunteer to do so. This is also a way of encouraging cross-generational sharing and learning, particularly in a society where family trends are shifting and there may be less opportunities for inter-generational sharing within the family.’….

I like this part of Chen Show Mao’s paper. The senior citizens are not a waste or rubbish waiting to be thrown away. Many are a store house of information and history. The accumulated experience in them is wisdom that cannot be found in the text books.

And with today’s medical advancement and the quality of life, many are very healthy and can go on till 70 or 80. I see myself going on to 70 without much stress. And many of the seniors are in such shape but thinking that their days are over, as society or govt has so fixed, and thus wasting their times in club houses or playing golf. Many can still be gainfully employed if they so choose.

The employment policies of the govt and private organizations, public and private institutions, should cater for this mindset change to welcome more seniors back to the work force. Many are financially sufficient and do not need abundance of money to work. A decent salary will be enough to keep them happy. By so doing, the labour cost could be lowered and more seniors would be independent instead of being a liability. And there is lesser need for foreigner to support a bigger ageing population when more are supporting themselves. When seniors are working till 70 or 80, they are economically active and contributing and supporting the economy as well. Isn’t that good?

There must be a serious conviction and commitment to restructure the workforce, to retain more people in the workforce for as long as possible. After all we have become an economic animal and working to death is our new mantra. Just look at the cleaners in the foodcourt will do. This, couple with the savings in their CPF or in their bank accounts or assets, the data on ageing population to be supported by a bigger and younger pool of workforce, particularly the PMETs, and that’s what our seniors will be as we move ahead, is thus misleading. There are many PMET jobs that are not directly related to ageing. The new seniors are knowledge based seniors. Many are armed with professional and tertiary degrees and wide ranging skills and knowledge. They are no longer the artisans or coolies of the past.

Think sinkie first and as the WP suggested, think of tapping the pool of the seniors and those females that can participate in the economy. Cut down on the one track mind of relying on foreigners. It is a drug, a bad habit. Kick the habit. Don’t be lazy, think harder.

Pro Sinkie or pro foreigner policies better

The WP proposal put up by Chen Show Mao came under immediate attack by the PAP bench. The WP’s proposal is basically to tap on the big pool of unemployed or underemployed Sinkies to the sum of 1.2m people. These people can go to waste, remain unemployed or underemployed but could be economically productive if they are returned to the workforce. What is so wrong with this? Why ignore them totally?

The PAP’s White Paper is about bringing in more foreigners, diluting the Sinkie element to about 50% by 2030. Between the two proposals, which one is more pro Sinkie and which is more pro foreigner?

Can the WP proposal work, fully, partially, it would mean more Sinkies in the workforce and lesser need to import more foreigners. Why can’t the PAP look into it to see if there are some merits and useful recommendations that can be incorporated into the bigger plan? Why must it be rejected lock, stock and barrel? NG!

Can the PAP proposal be moderated? Is it a no way out option that without the huge influx of foreigners, it cannot work? The foreigner content seems to be the core of the future workforce. And the foreigners are really here to improve the core of Sinkies by reducing the percentage of Sinkies in the country? I have a bit of problem trying to disentangle the logic or fallacy of the arguments.

The wayang in Parliament

The WP has stoically spoken against the White Paper but still conceded to 5.9m people. Several PAP MPs also spoken against the 6.9m population. Among the notables who were not in favour are Christopher De Souza, Arthur Fong and Seah Kian Peng who spoke out strongly about the population projection. Inderjit Singh also wanted the Govt to take a breather to solve the present cumulated problems before embarking on such an ambitious projection. There are more than 40 PAP MPs who are scheduled to speak on the subject.

This White Paper is a good test case to see how independent PAP MPs could be from party stand and whether they can be their own men or women, to speak and vote against party position. The proof is in the pudding. If they are only able to speak but still got to vote along party line, then in the future no PAP candidate should feel so free to declare he is an independent man and would stand on his beliefs, values and principles, even voting against the party if he feels strongly against an issue.

We have seen four PAP MPs so far, and may there be more to come, and the findings could be based on a larger sample size.

97% responded to Poll on the 6.9m population

621 bloggers have voted in the one week Poll on whether they are for or against the 6.9m population in the White Paper. 604 said no, 15 said yes, and 2 said dunno. If this sample is a true representation of the people’s feeling against the population increase, it means an overwhelming majority of the citizens opposed such a big population for the country. And the respondents here are not the unthinking and uneducated Ah Pek and Ah Mah but well read and mostly well informed PMETs.

From feedbacks in cyberspace, not much in the main media, and even from what some MPs in Parliament said, including those from the PAP, the majority of the citizens is against this move. Would the Govt take heed of the citizens’ position and make amendments to the White Paper? Though the Govt is claiming that this is only a number for the planners, it has not come up with a target population size for the people to take note. What is the number that the Govt is working on?

The WP has spoken that it does not support 6.9m but maybe 5.9m. What Govt is avoiding to say is the optimum population size that it wants for the island. The undertone in the White Paper is that 6.9m is workable even if it is the worst case scenario. The infrastructure is being prepared for 6.9m.

Can the people have a say in the final number? Would the Govt want to ask the people, in a referendum perhaps, on what is the number that the people want and abide by the wishes of the people? Be it 5m, 6m or 7m, these are numbers that can be workable and can be the parameters for the restructuring of the economy and the lifestyle and quality of life of the people. Any number would have its pros and cons. It is not an absolute good or bad number, but the bigger number is seen as being too crowded and undesirable. The final number must be what the citizens want and be comfortable with, not what the Govt wants.

Would the Govt seek the people’s view and consent? Or it is already cast in stone?

Repost from TRE, article by Mr N D

I have reposted this article from TRE which I think many Sinkies are in the same fate, victims of the Govt policies.

HDB unfair policy: I’d rather trade places with PRs


HDB

There is something seriously wrong with a country that penalises its citizens and fawns at foreigners. One such flawed policy which clearly demonstrates this is HDB’s policy on the eligibility to buy new flats.

Under HDB’s policy, a family nucleus consisting of at least one Singapore Citizen is eligible to buy a flat direct from HDB. This means that a family nucleus consisting of PRs can effectively buy a direct HDB flat as long as one of them is a citizen.

This is an unfair policy that allows foreigners to exploit loopholes in the system. A foreigner who buys a flat direct from HDB (with another citizen) effectively enjoys the subsidy which a citizen enjoys because he buys the flat at a subsidised rate. In addition, he enjoys the novelty of owning a brand new unit.

I am a citizen in my twenties. I do know of university peers who are permanent residents. They are two years younger than me because they did not have to do national service. Now, they are the future co-owners of HDB BTO units because they applied for BTO units with citizen counterparts. Also to note, their income was beneath the income ceiling, one of the eligibility criteria to buy a flat. I myself with my partner, also a citizen, are not eligible because our combined income is higher than the income ceiling. Even in the HDB resale market, we are not eligible for any subsidies.

This is great injustice. While I have spent 2 years of my youth in NS and am saddled with ongoing NS reservist liabilities which is disruptive to my career, I am worse off than a free-loading foreigner. The foreigner pays less taxes because of his lower income but is unreasonably rewarded simply because he meets the income ceiling criteria. He enjoys the full subsidy and perks of buying a flat direct from HDB which only a citizen should enjoy. The foreigner did not have to provide any service or commitment to this country to earn this subsidy.

Singapore is now facing a shortage of housing supply. This policy has to be reviewed to put as many citizens first, and to prevent the wrongful disbursements of subsidies to undeserving persons.

I read with interest about suggestions by the Ministry of National Development to raise the income ceiling for buying of HDB flats. However, this must be complemented with more stringent criteria of disallowing PRs from being co-owners of direct HDB flats. Otherwise, the raising of the income ceiling would also mean more foreigners unjustly enriching themselves through this loophole.

In that case, I would rather trade places with my PR peers. Singapore citizenship would be nothing but a liability.

Mr N D

How can there be a worst case scenario of 6.9m?

Our current population is 5.3m. How can this population shoot to 6.9m? The local population of 3.3m is unlikely to double by 2030. At less than 2.1% fertility rate, or 1.2%, the local population can hardly replace itself and likely to be not more than 4m. So where is the 2.9m coming from? It must be from immigration, the new citizens, the PRs, the E pass holders etc.

Only by import can the population grow to 6.9m. Now who controls the import of foreigners to add to the population? Every foreigner coming into the country must be approved by the Govt. The only reason for foreigners to increase sharply is by sheer design, by the Govt approving it. Thus a worst case scenario is either caused by the Govt blindly approving the influx or sleeping on the job. The foreign composition of our population cannot increase without the Govt’s approval or consent.

That is why I say that there cannot be a worst case scenario. If the govt has capped the population at 6m or whatever, it is in full control to turn off the tap of immigration. What is this talk about a worst case scenario? It is an unnecessary preoccupation or concern.

Citizens of convenience

Legally when a new citizen is given his pink IC and citizenship certificate he is a citizen of the country. There is no dispute to that. But emotionally, psychologically, intentionally, socially, how many of the new citizens are really the citizens like the true blue local citizens? Or when will a new citizen be really like a local citizen, emotionally and psychologically embracing this country as his country, his home? How many are just here for economic gains, for economic expediency, citizens of convenience, and planning another foot to get out at the next opportunity when this place is no longer useful or as attractive as before?

Over the last ten years or so, we may have given at least half a million citizenships to new citizens and many more as PRs. The statistics in favour of citizens in jobs and employment, in housing allocations etc are misleading in this sense as many went to new citizens at the expense of true blue citizens. This is a serious matter that must not go unnoticed and unspoken of. What are the real benefits and disadvantages that have befallen our native citizens?

Of the 5.3m population now, how many are true blue citizens if we exclude those new citizens that are less than 5 or 10 year old? Where are the statistics on this?

If Sinkies are now the absolute minority or going to be, then why should Sinkies be made to do NS to protect a country of foreigners? Should not the pay/allowance of NS men be raised to market value as they are now more like mercenaries hired not to serve country and people but foreigners and their assets? Why are Sinkies slogging and suffering in the field doing NS while foreigners are taking over their cushy jobs and speculating in properties to make money from Sinkies?

Has anything changed? Are the fundamentals of nationhood and national defence changed?

Population Poll

One day left for you to make your voice heard on this issue. 512 have voted. Keep it coming. This is important.

Thank you.

And don't forget the advertisers : )

Strengthening the Singaporean core

This is one of the major objectives of the White Paper that aimed to have 50% foreigners and 50% Sinkies. What is the percentage of Sinkies in the population today? 3.3m out of 5.3m works out to be 62%. And we used to be more than 70% or 90%.

So, with the dwindling percentage of Sinkies in the whole population, is the White Paper strengthening the Sinkie core or weakening the Sinkie core? And don’t forget the fact that many of the Sinkies are actually new citizens, actually foreigners with very shallow roots here. So, at 50% in 2030, what is the real true blue Sinkie core, 30%?

The preponderant maid/servant mentality

The employment of maids here is becoming a national preoccupation, a sign of affluence, a statement of having arrived. Everyone of any social standing would want to have a maid to tag along wherever they go. The maid/servant concept is now a necessity and the importance of maid/servant in a household is growing in importance. In many cases, the maid/servant has become indispensable and a must have. And the maid/servant knows the importance of their role in the household. Many have assumed the function of the butler and rule the house like their little fiefdoms. And the masters of the households are hapless as they have got too used to the whims and fancies of the maid/servant. They think they cannot do without the maid/servant running the house.

What has now become a new reality is that the maid/servant has usurped the power of the household and started to run the household to their likings, feeding the masters on what they thought or decided would be good for the masters. Some hold the purse strings, sort of, and buy what they wanted and dispense away with what they did not fancy. The masters are comfortable to return to a home as long as the home is kept tidy and in order and dare not ask for more. They just turn a blind eye to the growing power and control of the maid/servant.

Some maid/servants even have the audacity to bring in their friends to the homes. It started stealthily but it is now done in bright daylight. The households are frequented by guests of the maid/servant. They even occupied the guest rooms and would soon be using the master bedroom as well. And when the master protests, the maid/servant insists that their friends were there to help out to look after the house. Without the friends presence, the household will run down and turn into a mess. The master of the household sheepishly accepted the arrangement with little protest.

When will the maid/servant take over the household and drive the master out of the house? As it is, the children of the master have left as the house is either too small or getting undesirable for them to stay anyway.

PAP could have won Punggol East

There were two articles in the Sunday Times by Warren Fernandez and Han Fook Kwang analysing the Punggol East by election. Warren’s comments could be summarised under the following points, The writing was on the wall for the PAP, There’s no winning without a fight, Politics may be local, but all elections are national, Voters want ‘someone like me’, and Politics contrains policies. In these headings he more or less explained why the PAP lost Punggol East. If only the PAP could read his analysis before the by election, it would have won. There are so many enlightening comments and strategies which would help PAP in the by election and may be in the next GE.

Han Fook Kwang’s recommendation was simpler. He suggested that the PAP needed ‘to relook is the type of candidates it fields for elections….Get the right people in its leadership and the right policies will follow.’ What Han Fook Kwang did not say is that the PAP had been recruiting the wrong people that came up with the wrong policies. This is just what I read between the lines.

To me there were many issues facing the PAP then and going forward. The quality of its candidates, some were good, left much to be desire. It was so obvious to the voters but not to the PAP. Even some ministers are doubtful starters in the GE. They were the ones who formulated all the policies that were not only unpopular but seen as against the interests of the citizens. And obviously they did not get it and quickly propounded this great theory of a 6.9m population without highlighting the consequences of such a crowd but only economic growth. And we know what the PAP wants is not what the people want. And trust me, they are going to vote for the White Paper in Parliament with overwhelming majority. And they will proclaim that it was approved in Parliament.

Will a change in the type of candidates work? It is not just because they were elitist, not because they were parachuted down in the last hour, not because they could not connect with the people, I think there are more to it. It is history at works.

White Paper on population in Parliament

The MPs have probably one week to read the White Paper before debating in Parliament. I am sure many are very well prepared to debate this Paper by looking at the report that said 42 MPs will be talking on this issue.

One question that comes to mind is the position of the MPs. Will they be speaking for or against the 6.9m population? And the follow up question, how did they come to their final position? Did they talk to their constituents to seek their views on this crucial issue? How many of the constituents did they speak to in less than one week?

Or maybe they know what their constituents want and simply walk into Parliament to speak on their behalves. Or maybe there is no need to talk to their constituents as they have given them the full mandate as their representatives to say what, being the talented knows all MPs, they think is good for the constituents?

And I am sure they will vote for the interests of their constituents. And I am sure each one will be their own man or woman, to think and speak independently, and to vote independently with their conscience, and of course for the good of their constituents.

The people’s interests are in good hands. Trust me.

Time to bring back Stop At Two Policy

The Stop At Two population control policy was effective and needed in the 70s as our economy was underdeveloped and could not provide the jobs needed with a rapidly growing population. Then the economic boom came but the Govt fell asleep on this policy and let it dragged on when it should have been stopped. An expanding economy needs more workers and Stop At Two was obsolete, with hindsight. But there was no natcon to tell the Govt so. A loosening of this policy could have revived the slowing birth rate or at least reignite the sexual urge to reproduce and have more babies.

Rip Van Winkle continued to sleep when he was paid to think, to plan and to work. Maybe he was happily dreaming about the fortune he had been paid or enjoying his Karaoke sessions. And the Govt went on a buying spree, importing millions of foreigners dressed up as foreign talents. And now the population hits 5.3m and being unprepared for it, the infrastructure is straining. The most obvious are the public transport system, the hospital beds and housing.

Rip Van Winkle continued to sleep or high on drugs. The first neglect was forgetting to turn on the tap for the babies to start flowing. Now it is compounding the mistake by falling asleep again and wanting the tap to keep flowing when the bathtub is overflowing. The Govt does not know that there are now too many people in the island and it is time to turn off the tap. Instead it wants more, a population of 6.9m!

What is really needed now is to cap the population at 5.5m or thereabout. Over the last ten years our population growth was way beyond 3% annually, like on steroid. We have out grown and overshot the replacement rate.  It is time to recalibrate the population, resize and moderate and adjust the mix between citizens and non citizens. By adopting a national policy of 5.5m population, the rest of the Govt policies could then be fine tuned to this new target and status quo.

As the local bred and born citizens start to reproduce, more and more foreigners can then be allowed to leave. Let the locals replace the foreigners systematically and not the other way, and all the time keeping in mind the 5.5m population target. By doing so, there is really a need to reintroduce the Stop At Two policy again without letting the population size run away to 6 or 7m. Not only that the influx of foreigners needs to be stopped, the growth of the local population has also to be managed to keep it at 5.5m.

Don’t fall asleep and let things run uncontrolled to create another crisis. The island cannot afford to let the population grow unchecked, and from the general conversation, the citizens are more comfortable with 5.5m population. High population is a double edged sword and can cut both ways.

Please, no more sleeping and no more over killed or over blown. It is very difficult to have faith in a govt that did not know when the population is too small or too big.

6.9m is like acquiring a nuclear reactor

Once our population hits 6.9m, the need and call for a nuclear reactor to provide the energy will no longer be an option but a compulsion. The price of oil by then will be so expensive, and other forms of energy will not be efficient and are also likely to be just as expensive. So tak dah choice, mesti pergi nuclear. And we will be living with one nuclear reactor underground and a nuclear reactor on the surface.

A 6.9m population is not a joke. It needs to be fed, to be housed, it needs jobs and all kinds of goods and services, and everything is a cost. Another 1.7m mouth to feed and house is not ‘main main’. My God, any crisis will turn this population into a nightmare. When things are good and rosy, when the economy is good, there is nothing to worry about, who cares, trust me. When there is an economic downturn, the 7m is not going to go away overnight. And when their needs are not met, they are going to implode.

The nuclear reactor underground is less of a worry than the one above. The 6.9m is ticking and kicking and will not go to sleep. It is like keeping pets, dogs and cats and now big cats. The bigger the more to feed and the more dangerous when food runs out.

Don’t pray pray. It is not masak masak. You want 6.9m, and when you don’t want just flush down the toilet. They are intertwined and attached with the whole economy and infrastructure. It is not easily unwind like our housing prices. The difference between a genius and a berserk is only a fine thin line.

And I am not talking about water and reservoir and all the rest that are needed.

Enlightening speech with a Foreign Talent

 

 Enlightening speech with a FT citizen

I was in a remote western region in China and we were stranded at this small lousy airport. And there is only 1 Indian man (age 59, I found out from him later). No one could help him and I knew I was the only one and of course being kind hearted, and naive Singaporean, I voluntarily went. I saw his "RED passport" and we connected!!! Then we started to discuss the Punggol East By-election, the government and the policies. (Please do not assume a RED passport is automatic bred and bornt in Singapore... I was lambasting how Singapore has transformed from a lovely state to a state where everyone has become emotionless and working round the clock to pay for everything and to survive.) 15 minutes into the discussion, he told me he is FT who came to Singapore 10 years ago and quickly offered PR and new citizen in less than 2 years. By the way, this guy is not Foreign Trash, he is Senior Management in Fortune 500 (the ranking is below 50) and paid over $20,0000++ a month. Below are questions from me and answers from him:-

Me: The government is doing a bad job and people are suffering.

FT: I read the Straits Times and every survey is indicating good, I dont agree what you said is true and today. (I said, you really believe that BS? You did not have time to browse the web than to believe the propaganda...I went on to tell him many examples like AIM etc, he was shocked... but the newspaper version is so different.... but anyway he said he did not have time, working very long hours every day)

Me: Well, do you feel we imported too many FT, especially low quality ones from neighbouring regions.

FT: Yes, totally agreed, its getting too crowded and also the pay for average guy is getting lower but living expenses are sky high. (But he was a FT himself but of course this man used to work in the US and UK for many years before arriving into SG, probably what they called a real FT)

Me: If Singapore is so good, are you going to retire in Singapore?

FT: Retire in Singapore? (shrugs with a laugh)

Me: Why? You said Singapore is so good etc.... And you said those surveys damn good.

FT: Honestly speaking, my pay is crossing $20,000 a month but I wont retire here. First, our CPF is trapped and the medical cost and daily expenses are so high. I am going to renounce and take all the cash and move back to India. Anyway, I also dont want to die in a foreign land.

Me: Arent you one of us?

FT: In a way but I still need to go back, this place is getting too expensive to live and I dont want my body to be resting here, I am not bornt here.

Me: $20k a month you telling me this? How about those making $5000 or ....

FT: Dont pretend you dont know, they work and pay all their lives until they die. And I am not going to be in that position.

Me: Your kids in Singapore?

FT: I sent them to UK and US and told them not to come back.

Me: Singapore is such great place, you told me and why.... ahhhhh (cynicism)

FT: I could not imagine that they be paid $2500 after their graduation, compete with millions of foreigners and pay a debt of 30 years for that million dollar HDB. And education in US is more prestigious and they can get into Fortune 500 companies easily and they buy houses and drive cars etc. And if they really return to SG (which I doubt so.. because they are originally from Calcutta and honestly, they dont really like Singapore), they will be Foreign Talent and be paid very high like me, no need to fight with those foreigners.

Me: They did not serve NS huh?

FT: You asking me silly questions, I did not convert them PR before 18... I found way to go around it (laugh very hard)

Me: Warao (Singapore style). You enjoy so much from Singapore and how you going to thank us?

FT: I voted PAP every GE, and that is thank you. And they gave me PR, new citizenship and also my HDB (I sold at record profits and now living in nice condo in Jurong East). When I retire, I will sell and take all the CPF to India. I really appreciate Singapore.

wah piang eh...... i am really that daft and naive like most Singaporeans.

What we need is more space

What we need is more space and not more people. When we were 2m, life was definitely much more comfortable with lesser congestion and more space for everything. We have bigger homes, more room for cars and car ownership did not cost a leg or an arm. We have many parks and land for recreation and simply running around.

We now have more than 5m people. We are digging out our ancestors’ graves, doing away with cemeteries and sending our old folks to homes across the causeway. And we keep on building skyscrapers that cost a lifetime to pay when better and bigger homes could be had at cheaper cost if we have more land.

What I thought would be better is to reclaim more land and provide more living space instead of stuffing them up again with people and concrete. I believe the quality of life will be much better for young and old when the island is less congested instead of all cramming up in little pigeon holes in the air, and the roads so congested with cars. The quality of life cannot be better with more people squeezed into this piece of rock. This is not progress but regression.

We do not need more people for some economic growth numbers. We need more space to live and play and a more leisure and less stressful environment. Would it not be better for a family of four living in a 1,500 sq ft flat, where one does not need to knock into each other or against the wall or furniture? Would it not be better if there is more private space for everyone in the homes and outside the homes?

What is so good or great to squeeze with 7m people? What is so good quality to be crammed up in hard concrete and all the artificialities that cost a bomb, like the Avatar Garden? There is nothing better than having more natural space to live and for recreation. It is so silly to reclaim more space only to stuff them up with more people, provide more public transport only to make sure the commuters are packed like sardine again. Whose great idea is this? Better quality of life Ya?

We must be responsible to our future generations by leaving them enough room/space to grow. We cannot be so irresponsible as to build up every inch of land in the island.  The White Paper is to exhaust every land and space we have with more people. The citizens must decide on the number we want and work around it. We should not go the other way, letting the dubious economic growth numbers to dictate our fate and the number of people on this island.

White Paper - The nonsensical arguments so far

We must plan for the worst than to underprovide. This is what Boon Wan said about the 6.9m population projection. I dunno if he knew what he was talking about. He quoted the example of wedding dinner guests and not sure how many would eventually turn up. Hello, the population of a country is not a wedding dinner. The number of people in the country can be calibrated and controlled especially when a big chunk is made up of foreigners. When the number is reaching the target, just turn off the tap. It is so easy, unlike the fertility rate of the citizens, more or less, the govt would have to accept. Is this simple enough illustration to say there is no necessity to plan for the worst when population number is concerned?

Boon Wan also said that he was confident that he would be able to ‘calibrate its plans,…adding that the housing supply will be paced “accordingly, a little bit ahead of demand.’ He should have taught his predecessor this and there would not have been any housing problem today.

The next thing I heard is that Lim Swee Say said that we would not have all the problems associated with the 5.3m population if we have had the national conversation yesterday. This is so as the natcon would have raised the problems of the need to upgrade the infrastructure before the population surged from 4.1m to 5.3m. Uhhhh…., beg your pardon? Did he mean that the govt would only be able to avoid all the overcrowding and lack of infrastructure problem if there was a natcon, and that the govt is incapable of planning ahead, lack of foresight?

I am so terrified. Do we still want to believe that the White Paper is carefully thought out? So scary isn’t it?

Protest at Hong Lim Park on 6.9m population

Protest at Hong Lim Park on 16 Feb (Sat) at 4.30pm  This event is organised by Gilbert Goh of Transitioning.org blog. Please note the change of date as it was supposed to be held this Sat 2 Feb.   Would the Sinkies feel strong enough to make a strong presence for this event?

So far 415 people have voted in the Poll. Please keep it going. 4 more days to go before the poll closes.

And don't forget to click on the advertisers. Cheers.

2030 the Good Year for Sinkies

In the year 2030, with 6.9m rich and prosperous Sinkies, PRs and foreigners, Sin City will be the crown jewel of the world. Sinkies will still be the richest people in the world, enjoying world class facilities and all the material comfort available. All the PRs and foreigners will be living happily and in harmony with the Sinkies, something like the paradise where lions and lambs will eat and play together.

Are there any conditions attached? This is too good to be true. And anything that is too good to be true deserves a second thought. The recent cases of gold trading companies paying out 2% monthly interest and all the great profits of toxic notes and bonds were also too good to be true. What is the catch? Can all the Sinkies be PMETs and earn half a million or more in annual income to live it up with the great life? How much will it cost to buy a HDB flat or a COE? How much will a plate of char kway teow or a ride in a taxi or any form of public transport? What will be the cost of living like for such a grandiose lifestyle? Would it be only for the rich or for the average Sinkies?

I dare not ask about hospitalization and how much the Medisave Minimum Sum would be or the CPF savings. All I know is that nothing is for free. There is no free lunch, even today.

One condition for this happy dream to come true is to continue to vote PAP into power to carry out this plan all the way to 2030.