PM Lee: We are all in this together

The Parliament has passed the White Paper for 6.9m population in 2030 with all 77 PAP MPs voting yea. And Hsien Loong proudly said, 'We are all in this together.' Do the people have a say or a choice not to be part of this madness?

I think Hsien Loong forgot to complete his sentence, 'We are all in this together, all 77 of us.' Did he know that the opposition MPs and the NMPs +NCMPs are not in this together? Did he know that the majority of the citizens are not in this together with his 77 MPs? According to the mini poll conducted in this blog, 97% were not together with him. And this can be confirmed by the number of people that have indicated that they will be attending the protest rally on 16 Feb at Hong Lim Park.

The attendance in this rally is probably one of the most important event in the history of this island. The cramming of additional 2m people into the island in the last 10 years went on sneakily without the consent of the people. The influx of foreigners were allowed in by the Govt and causing a lot of hardship, dislocation and disruption on the lives of the citizens. High cost of living, high property prices, high COEs, congestion, competition for space and services and straining of the infrastructure, transport systems and facilities, are getting on the nerves of the people. The patience of an otherwise very kiasu, kiasi and kiachenghu people has reached a BTH state, beh tahan liao.

And Hsien Loong said 'We are all in this together.' Really? This statement is going to rile more angry protestors. We are all NOT in this together. Wait for the voices of the people at the protest rally to be heard.

Gilbert Goh, the organiser of the protest is overwhelmed. He thought it would be the usual 200 crowd. Now the feedback is not even 2000 but many times more. The news of a massive turnout has wetted the interests of the international media and all the big guys will be there to report on this event.

The Singapore Spring has finally arrived, prompted or initiated by courtesy of the Govt through the highly unpopular White Paper.

77 MPs voted in favour of the White Paper

The very unpopular White Paper on future population in the island was passed yesterday with 77 for, 11 nay and 1 abstained. At least two PAP MPs were not present, LKY and Inderjit Singh. PAP has 80 MPs in Parliament. 79 PAP MPs were counted, 77 +2. Who is missing? All opposition MPs and NMPs voted against except for the diplomatic Eugene Tan who chose to abstain. The house is divided with PAP against the others on this population issue.

It is clear that the only way for a PAP MP not to vote along party line is to be absent with valid excuses, like LKY and Inderjit. Those who are present in Parliament would have to vote accordingly no matter if they agree or disagree with the motion or even spoke against it. Is this enough to confirm that no PAP MP can be an independent MP, to vote according to his belief and conscience, or be his own man or woman, to take a stand against the party position?

The fate of this island having 6.9m population is sealed. We are going to get more foreigners into the country to maintain a strong Sinkie core. They are here for the good of Sinkies. ‘We are doing it for Singaporeans…’ I got goose pimples hearing these words spoken by politicians.

The attractiveness of Singapore as a production and business centre

Singapore is what it is today not just because of cheap labour. There are many factors that make Singapore a very attractive and business friendly country. Thanks to the Govt, we have a very pro business climate, good infrastructure, good govt rules and regulations, ease of doing business with negligible corruption, transparency, good labour, govt and business relations and a highly educated workforce. English is the common language for govt, business and social activities. The legal system is based on the British model that many developed countries are familiar with. There is hardly any restriction on the transfer of money, ease of transport and communication system, good international connectivity and a very safe and clean and liveable environment. It is so easy to just move in and live in this city. The tax rate is about the lowest in the world.

With so many advantages, even the high cost of living is not too much an issue. We have full employment. There is really no need to create more employment unless the Govt is thinking of increasing the population/workforce which means more jobs are needed. If the population is more or less capped at the present level, even with some leaving, the employment situation is unlikely to be seriously affected. Any company that leaves will likely to be replaced quickly by more productive and higher value added companies. 

The Govt could use this opportunity to restructure the economy, allow the less productive and labour intensive companies to leave. Those that need cheap labour and could not live without them can also leave. Those companies that think they could operate in this city will still come. With our highly educated workforce, the high value added companies would not have problem fitting in to benefit from all the first class facilities and advantages this country is providing. The country should keep upgrading, keep the population at the current level without straining on the infrastructure and resources, and raising the income level of the workforce at the same time.

There is no need to keep relying on cheap labour industries that are not paying well. That is an area that the country has moved away from and should not return to. The jobs and pay they are creating are worthless numbers that we can do without. Whatever residual companies, let them be, and if they are not competitive, let them move to neigbouring countries to tap on their cheaper workforce and infrastructure if they find it difficult to get cheap labour. 

We need to attract good quality companies with high paying jobs for our graduates from the universities and tertiary institutions. Otherwise these graduates will be competing for lower and cheaper jobs with cheaper PMETs with lower quality papers and qualifications. We have world class universities churning out quality graduates not to be cheap labour.

By keeping the population at this level, many of the land and facilities can be improved without straining them and without incurring huge infrastructure development cost. The large reclamation of land and housing may not be necessary or less will be needed. This is also in a way a chicken and egg situation, one feeding on the other.

Singapore is a very attractive place to live and do business without being cheap. We don’t have to sell this country as cheap and good. We are good and very good. Many rich and famous would want to be here and live here. Let’s throw away the mantra of CBF. Lets be expensive and good and high paying. We are already expensive in many ways and the businesses are still coming. We can be selective, not grabbing the cheap and less productive ones. Does this argument make sense?

What do you think?

Hong Lim Park Protest

I just like to have a feel on how many people may be attending the Hong Lim Park Protest on the White Paper. The rally is on Sat 16 Feb 13 at 4.30 pm. The Poll is on the right.

And also click the advertisement for my breakfast. Thank you.

Redbean

What makes a citizen Singaporean?

This has never been an issue, but it is now. The amount of privileges and public money given to new citizens as subsidies and national bonuses, the priority in housing when some true blue Sinkies are not even allowed to buy, is becoming a big pain in the neck for the real citizens of the country they built and they sacrificed for. What the fuck is happening to my country? Why are citizens, the original citizens being treated as second class citizens, being disadvantaged by new citizens and even PRs and foreigners? Does the Govt know this, or does the Govt know that it is the cause of all these unfair treatments against its very own citizens it is supposed to look after?

The facetious remarks made by some MPs and Tan Chuan Jin are rude and offensive to Singaporeans, I mean the true blue Singaporeans. The examples raised of Amy Khor, Chen Show Mao and some ministers were selective examples that evade the angst and anger of the people. Don’t evade the main issue, the real pain the people are feeling. It is the new citizens that the people are fed up with when they are given so many privileges at the expense of the true blue Singaporeans.

You are not a citizen like one of us if you don’t serve NS when you could. You are not a citizen when you evade NS. Don’t come up with craps that you are saving babies and helping the economies by working in your profession. NS is the rite of passage to citizenship for male citizens. NS is the badge of honour, the common path that all male citizens will have to take as their contribution to nationhood. Do not degrade and abuse NS as something else when you have not donned the uniform, to train, to defend and to be maimed or die for this country.

All new citizens, using an arbitrary figure of 5 or 10 years, must not receive the same subsidies and handouts as true blue Singaporeans. All male citizens that are eligible to do NS but did not is not deserving to be a citizen and must not be allowed to hold senior positions in public office, especially to be seated in Parliament.

Our little island is now flooded with millions of new citizens and the number is going up. If we do not make a difference between the new citizens and true blue citizens, we will be short changing ourselves, selling our rights away.

White Paper – Don’t listen to snake oil salesmen

The debate on the 6.9m population is getting heated up in Parliament. The position of the PAP is that without the more than 1m foreigners coming into the workforce, the city will sink and Sinkies will really be sinking. Our reputation will be impaired, MNCs threatening to pull out, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, standard of living will go down, and they forgot to add that our women folks will all become maids in foreign countries. What else is new? Crying wolf to little children?

97% of Sinkies have said no to this outrageous scheme of turning our country into a foreigners hub. Are the 97% population so stupid and the handful of snake oil salesmen genius, the white knights that are here to save the people and country? I have written a piece about the restructuring of our economy in the early days when many of these wise men were still playing golies or flying kites. Didn’t they know that we have gone through a very critical phase of skills upgrading to high value added jobs to raise the income of our workers? When has this country turned into another cheap labour joint?

Restructuring the economy…if you can remember

Many seniors would remember how Jurong Industrial Town started. It was primary industries, some heavy industries and many were labour intensive industries. When we started to industrialise, labour intensive industries were the only thing available even if the pay was low. There were plentiful of not well educated workers available and needed jobs. We were competing for investments by being cheap and good.

This went on for a decade or two before China opened up. Our immediate neighbours too were encouraging low cost industries to locate there. The writing was on the wall. We could not compete based on cheap labour. Productivity was the key to lift the economy and industries to the next level. The Govt consciously allowed, or no choice, when many labour intensive garment and electronics companies uprooted to cheaper sources of labour. We have the National Productivity Board, famously known as NPB, to boost productivity.

The Govt went on to attract high value added industries here. We promote ourselves as a hub for knowledge based industries. Highly educated and high quality workers and higher pay. We have to compete at a different level to survive. No more cheap labour!

Some years ago the NPB’s name was changed to Spring. I am wondering what the hell that word meant. It cannot be an Arab Spring or Singapore Spring. But what was clear, Productivity is no longer the key word. And the productivity of the industries and economies actually got buried and forgotten. Productivity has gone to sleep. Whatever GDP growth there was is now directly related to the number of workers, skilled, unskilled and low skilled, that are brought into the country. There is nothing to do with productivity but low cost.

Since when have we become a low cost production centre and cheap labour joint and trying to compete with our neighbours and giants like China, India and Indonesia, and even Malaysia? And why are there so many low cost industries here today and now trying to blackmail the Govt not to restrict the inflow of cheap labour? Why is the Govt not doing the same as in the early 80s, to shift out the labour intensive and cheap labour industries? Or how did so many of these industries creep into this knowledge based economy in the first place?

Would the Govt got weak knees and beg the MNCs to stay put? Please don’t go, we will obey and let you have whatever you want. We will import more cheap labour?

What is happening?

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.