Andrew Loh
On 8 March 2008, the Straits Times carried a report headlined, “Oil prices ‘unlikely to rise further’.” The person making that prediction was none other than Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
At that time, oil prices were trading at US$105. The ST report said, “As crude oil prices hit US$105 (S$145) per barrel, MM Lee believes it is not likely to creep further up to US$110.”
MM Lee said, “’I don’t think it can go up US$110, US$120, US$150 and the world economy goes on. Inflation will go through the roof. Economies of the West will go down, hyper-inflation in many developing countries. So it will go into reverse.”
Hardly two months later, prices rose above US$110 in May. Another two months later, in July, prices shot to US$145.
ext-align: center;”>
[MM Lee has also admitted to being wrong in banning Formula One races and for disallowing casinos in the past. The GIC, of which he is chairman, was also wrong in "going in too early" when it invested in UBS and Citigroup, MM Lee said in March this year. See here. In July 2007, MM Lee said Singapore was in a "golden period" - right before the financial crisis hit.]
The point here is that we must not be lulled into thinking that MM Lee is always right. He is not. Even his GIC outfit has lost more than $50 billion in bad investments this past year alone.
Thus when the 14 August 2009 edition of the Straits Times gave front page prominence to MM Lee’s remarks on foreign workers and immigrants, we should take pause and ask ourselves: Is MM Lee right?
His past results in population control is, to say the least, dubious.
Stop-At-Two
In the 70s, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew introduced the “Stop-At-Two” policy to curb our population growth. The buzzwords then were “Family Planning” and “Two Is Enough”. For those who are unfamiliar with the policy, this was what it entailed, according to :
“Birth rates fell from 1957 to 1970, but then began to rise as women of the postwar baby boom reached child-bearing years. The government responded with policies intended to further reduce the birth rate.
Abortion and voluntary sterilization were legalized in 1970. Between 1969 and 1972, a set of policies known as “population disincentives” were instituted to raise the costs of bearing third, fourth, and subsequent children.
Civil servants received no paid maternity leave for third and subsequent children; maternity hospitals charged progressively higher fees for each additional birth; and income tax deductions for all but the first two children were eliminated.
Large families received no extra consideration in public housing assignments, and top priority in the competition for enrollment in the most desirable primary schools was given to only children whose parents had been sterilized before the age of forty.
Voluntary sterilization was rewarded by seven days of paid sick leave and by priority in the allocation of such public goods as housing and education.
The policies were accompanied by publicity campaigns urging parents to “Stop at Two” and arguing that large families threatened parents’ present livelihood and future security. The penalties weighed more heavily on the poor, and were justified by the authorities as a means of encouraging the poor to concentrate their limited resources on adequately nurturing a few children who would be equipped to rise from poverty and become productive citizens.”
The policy was so clinically effective in its application and implementation that by the 80s, Singapore’s falling birth rate was in the danger zone. None of the Members of Parliament at that time sounded any alarms about the danger and all apparently supported the birth control policy. The local state-controlled media went along for the ride, much as it is today.
Yet, instead of a total reversal of the policy when it became clear that it was having adverse consequences, MM Lee introduced another ill-fated idea – the infamous “Graduate Mothers Policy”.
e government acted to give preferential school admission to children whose mothers were university graduates, while offering grants of S$10,000 to less educated women who agreed to be sterilized after the birth of their second child. The government also established a Social Development Unit to act as matchmaker for unmarried university graduates. The policies, especially those affecting placement of children in the highly competitive Singapore schools, proved controversial and generally unpopular.”
In 1985, the highly unpopular policy was abolished as it was not achieving its aims of having graduate mothers produce more babies. It was only in 1987 that the Stop-At-Two policy was abandoned entirely. By then, Singapore’s birth rate had run into serious problems – we were not replacing ourselves at an appropriate rate.
Population control revisited
30 years later, the same man who was responsible for the “Stop At Two” policy in the 70s, is now telling us that the government “accept only immigrants who increase the average level of competence of Singaporeans” – and doing so to the tune of 1.68 million foreigners presently on our tiny island, in a population of 3.2 million Singaporeans.
This is in response to Singapore’s birth rate problem – it continues to fall, despite government incentives to induce Singaporeans to have children.
Besides MM Lee’s dubious record in population control, the same danger of our Parliamentarians silently tagging along and thus giving support to such policies, as similarly happened in the 70s and 80s, may see history repeat itself – 30 years hence, with future generations living the consequences of this present policy.
Calls from some quarters for the government to re-look its policy on foreigners have been met with dismissive remarks by government ministers. “Just zeroing in on foreign workers alone is not the total solution,” Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said in August. He also termed such calls “simplistic”.
What concerns Singaporeans are not just jobs or economic prosperity but also the social consequences of having so many foreigners in our midst. This has led to some Singaporeans wondering if the government knows what is happening on the ground, where physical and personal space is now harder to come by, even in the heartlands. This may potentially result in social friction among the various groups, something which the Prime Minister spoke about in his National Day message recently.
The government’s preoccupation seems to be the economy and how foreigners can contribute to this. It has said little about the social consequences, although it has set up the l “to drive social integration efforts across the private, people and public sectors”. The success of the council’s effort is left to be seen.
In the meantime, the government has been urging Singaporeans to “embrace and accept” these foreigners, as MM Lee said on 14 August. He also urged Singaporeans to “treat new citizens as equals”.
According to the New Population Secretariat website, the number of PRs in 2008 was 79,167, upped from 63,627 the previous year.
The number of new citizens hit a record high of 20,513 in 2008, upped from 17,334 in 2007.
We seem to be in a hurry to bring in foreigners at an alarming rate.
But perhaps all is not lost. The lone voice in Parliament calling for a re-look of the policy has come from the ruling party’s own Member of Parliament, Mrs Josephine Teo. But even so, she is only concerned about the falling productivity level of Singaporean workers. Her argument is that a more targeted approach to the employment of foreigners will help up the productivity level of Singaporeans.
But given how the government seems to feel that the policy is the right one, and ministers have defended it to the hilt, it does not appear that any changes will be forthcoming.
The man and his ideas are not always right
Lee Kuan Yew’s attempt at population control in the 70s and 80s has resulted in a population unable and unwilling to replace itself.
Will our current policy at population control by the same government result in a worse fate for Singaporeans in the future?
Blogger Lucky Tan says it best here:
The real reason for the large percentage of imported labor, more than almost anywhere else in the world, is to keep wages down so that rent, utilities, transport and other costs can go up. It would have been alright if we did it like Dubai where the indigenous population sits on top of the economic food chain while foreigners do all the work. The problem is a large number of Singaporeans are at the bottom of the food chain….crushed.
Anyone who’s had a track record in population control as Lee Kuan Yew has would be seen as a failure. Yet, we are providing front page coverage to MM Lee’s latest thinking on the topic.
MM Lee may have been instrumental in building Singapore.
But neither he nor his government is always right – as history has proved.
—–
We recommend this article in Singapore Angle on the topic: Demographic Policy Transition.
Read also: Why are we still being led by one man’s philosophy?
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Failure of Baby Bonus a hindsight too?
Definitely not.
Right from the day one, there were many critics on this Baby Bonus policy that it would fail. The voices of the opponents was not heard and was not seriously taken as a record.
In the march of history, despotic rulers all the world over will see their days.
LKY is no different. Through the period of obsolute control tightening even more
the all these years, showed that LKY has carried himself and the government to their own comfort zone of life. The suffering citizens.
What happens to the ordinary citizens is less the governments concerned but to
admit more foreigners into our workforce for obvious reasons of economy.
The citizens of Singapore are being betrayed by the government that 66.6% voted them in. Open our eyes for a better Singapore, by not voting them out in the next election.
The stop at two was the greatest social fiasco of LKY policies, seeing the erosion of the family nucleus with small families. Gone were the days of family cohesion of a bigger family, like my parents time with eleven members.
We long for the passing of an era forced down our throats with the shortsightedness of LKY policies. We can only lament with regret.
LKY a man of great vision from the onset of early Singapore, has changed through the years of strong iron rule and fully enriches himself and his government ministers, relatives, cronies with the citizens hard earned money.
How can many Singaporeans unable to see the exigencies of change for a
better Singapore to have a two party parliament not a monopoly by PAP.
LKY should retire gracefully. It really make his goody son LHL looked lost .
LHL is so quiet, living in his own silhouette. See what rubbish LHL got to say in
Sunday’s national day rally to the nation.
Amendment in #52, fourth paragraph……BY VOTING THEM (PAP) OUT IN THE
NEXT ELECTION.
As for (52), maybe LLh last ND rally.
One simple gauge of successful social policy….
A low / middle income family has not qualms bearing more children
It’s funny how the “Stop at 2″ policy has been blamed for today’s infertility among Singaporeans.
Go out to the streets and ask all the young couples you can find. If they have 2 or fewer children, ask them their top 3 reasons for not having children, or not having more children. Chances are, you’ll get things like “stressful environment”, “no money”, “no time”, “no freedom” etc etc.
I REALLY dont think anyone would say “oh because I listen to the Stop at 2 Policy”.
the “Stop at Two” policy is one contributing factor among the few. more so at a time where people abide by the words of the ruling more unquestioningly, by mere persuasion that is. at that time, the cost of living was not as bad as the last few years.
the cost of living & the lack of work/life balance is more pressing recent years. in all, they add up in stages at different time to deter married couples from having children (1, 2 or more).
XiiAoGeNgEnX,
I think that’s a simplistic view of the policy. To be sure, that policy was enforced at all levels of society – giving most parents not a lot of room for choices.
In short, it was not a voluntary undertaking by parents. You could say that the policy was a coercive one – you had to follow it if you did not want to disadvantage your children.
And no parents would want that to happen.
In response to these 2 comments:
58) Andrew Loh on August 15th, 2009 3.15 pm
In short, it was not a voluntary undertaking by parents. You could say that the policy was a coercive one – you had to follow it if you did not want to disadvantage your children.
57) mice is nice on August 15th, 2009 3.13 pm
the “Stop at Two” policy is one contributing factor among the few. more so at a time where people abide by the words of the ruling more unquestioningly, by mere persuasion that is.
Please refer to my earlier comment:
Go out to the streets and ask all the young couples you can find. If they have 2 or fewer children, ask them their top 3 reasons for not having children, or not having more children. Chances are, you’ll get things like “stressful environment”, “no money”, “no time”, “no freedom” etc etc.
I REALLY dont think anyone would say “oh because I listen to the Stop at 2 Policy”.
Furthermore, Andrew, the CURRENT policy gives advantages to parents who have more than 2 children. And “mice is nice”, if Singaporeans were as obedient as you claim we are, then why arent Singaporeans having more children despite the government “encouraging” them to?
15/8/09
Dear All
The state of Modern Singapore must have a good numbers of Opposition MPs in Parliament and currently we only have 2.5 (2 duly elected ie Chiam and Low and 0.5 Ms Slyvia) and these 2.5 are not good enough to make the PAP Ministers and MPs a good run for their money. I am looking at 10 Opposition MPs in the new Parliament should a General Election be called and we as Ordinary Singapore citizen must exercise our votes as precious as possible and don’t be like our fathers and grandfathers who continued voting in the PAP to an extend they had 100% control in Parliament.
The Foreign Talents-FT we have are not Top Guns and all are second and third classes and we are losing our local born Singaporeans many who are Top Guns and time has come to make every efforts to attract them back to Singapore and make them feel at home.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
@56) XiiAoGeNgEnX on August 15th, 2009 2.43 pm
XiiAoGeNgEnX,
Perhaps you are confused with WHEN the effects of the Stop-at-2 policy started. I’m not an expert on demography but U know a baby is not made overnight and the economical effects of that baby need at least 20+ years to be seen. One cannot start asking questions when the TFR is at 1.3; if the goal was 2.1, and it was running at 1.9, 1.8, 1.7, etc. over the years, then actions should have been implemented, and effectively, after 5-10 years trend. Did we get from 2.1 to 1.3 overnight? No? Then what the hell did the govt do when it was sliding 20, 15, 10, 5 years back? Sit back, shake legs & just scheme how to justify paying themselves $m salaries?
On hindsight–it is the law of nature that the future will always look back at what happened in history. It is then also naturally that people will criticize or praise past actions. The critique of effective leadership is always based on hindsight; otherwise why pay people like CEOs big bucks to SUCCESSFULLY implement the future? If a well-paid honcho doesn’t deliver as expected, will people just say he was “unlucky”? If the future is uncertain, and every tom/dick/harry has equal chance of failure or success on hindsight, then why don’t we just put a 5-year-old as PM, pay him/her a lollipop a month and hope for the best? I’m sure those that have served NS will get my drift.
People that poo-poo hindsight are like, I mentioned, the Japanese over their atrocities in WW2. Such people sure want to forget, but per someone herein mentioned, the action of a few affected millions; it is those millions that have to live out the effects of failed policies.
60) Andrew Chuah
20 will be my number
More teeth, more bite
XiiAoGeNgEnX,
“Furthermore, Andrew, the CURRENT policy gives advantages to parents who have more than 2 children. And “mice is nice”, if Singaporeans were as obedient as you claim we are, then why arent Singaporeans having more children despite the government “encouraging” them to?”
Isn’t the answer obvious?
One, times have changed.
Two, the policy in the 70s and 80s focused on disincentives and punishment. As I said, parents who did not follow the govt’s dictates disadvantaged their children. So, parents followed the rules, even though they did not like it.
Three, presently, the policy is more about incentives rather than disincentives. But as I said, times have changed. The economy is different, lifestyle is different, education level is different.
To me, there is no comparison between the Singapore of 30 years ago and the Singapore of today as far as lifestyle is concerned. Younger people of today – their thinking, educational level, outlook on life, etc – are different from those of yesteryears.
To be clear, I support the incentives being given out by the govt but I feel they should go further.
Wah Lau eh….still wanna let foreigners in.
Lim Beh no job already….they still wanna tak kan me!
Seems like they want to force me to become a croupier.
59) XiiAoGeNgEnX
“Go out to the streets and ask all the young couples you can find. If they have 2 or fewer children, ask them their top 3 reasons for not having children, or not having more children. Chances are, you’ll get things like “stressful environment”, “no money”, “no time”, “no freedom” etc etc.
I REALLY dont think anyone would say “oh because I listen to the Stop at 2 Policy”.”
& the point of asking now is? 10 – 20 years ago is different from now. unless you can travel back in time to do the survey, lol…
“if Singaporeans were as obedient as you claim we are, then why arent Singaporeans having more children despite the government “encouraging” them to?”
for this, you can do your own survey in the streets. 8)
59) XiiAoGeNgEnX
“Go out to the streets and ask all the young couples you can find. If they have 2 or fewer children, ask them their top 3 reasons for not having children, or not having more children. Chances are, you’ll get things like “stressful environment”, “no money”, “no time”, “no freedom” etc etc.
I REALLY dont think anyone would say “oh because I listen to the Stop at 2 Policy”.”
& the point of asking now is? 10 – 20 years ago is different from now. unless you can travel back in time to do the survey, lol…
“if Singaporeans were as obedient as you claim we are, then why arent Singaporeans having more children despite the government “encouraging” them to?”
for this, you can do your own survey in the streets. 8)
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
here’s an interesting article on the economist magazine titled just last week called “A link between wealth and breeding: The best of all possible worlds?” as below: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164483
It seems like if the Human Developement Index of a country rises above level 9, a developed country’s birth rate, instead of dropping to low level of 1.3, starts to rebound like a J-curve back to 2 (the ideal level). From the human development report website online, our HDI is 0.918 and ranking is 28, and it seems like we are just at the bottom of the J-curve. http://hdrstats.undp.org/2008/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_SGP.html
Perhaps, as Dr Myrskyla noted in the article, only when the environment becomes super-propitious can parents afford more children without compromising those they already have. It seems like Singapore may not be so called “super-propitious” enough for our birth-rate to rebound. Singapore may want to rexamine why its own goverment policies may have contributed to this lack of “super-propitious” conditions for long-term fertility consideration.
When a man ties himself up in ropes, and then say that he can only move his pinky toes as he is all tied-up, can you be sympathetic?
besides declining birthrates, the outflow of locals talents may very well be that most local talents that left seek a decent or more reasonable wage/remuneration for their talent, not to be constantly told to moderate their salary expectations.
if our elites expect top dollar for top *ahem* talent. why should our well educated younger generation accept anything less?
growing up & enrolling in schools locally all the way to tertiary or Uni is a hefty price, how can we accept a “buy high, sell low” 3rd world (i am thankful for this & that) mentality?
MM Lee is wrong with his birth-control policies yet he does not admit to it resulting in the overflowing of the so called “Foreign-Talent”. He was wrong once and he still does not realise having to many foreigners will lead to social problems years later. I personally am not very comfortable with so many foreigners in Singapore.
don’t know what right or wrong, just know that i unable to get a hdb now. thanks to our government. no wonder birth rate decrease.
Go to every corner in Singapore Kopitiam and watch FT at work, serving, washing and cleaning tables……….all the jobs of the Aunties & Uncles gone to outsourcing of FT so to speak!
I strongly agree that we should start to torch those who bring them in. They need to learn not manipulate votes as and when they like.
MM Lee is not an oracle, but merely human who also makes mistaken judgments and evaluations. As such if we think he’s a guy who can do no wrong whatsoever, it is already a mistake by itself.
As it is, he makes more and more inaccurate “predictions”. Therefore whether to continue in taking his words as seriously as before, can be said to be whether you wanna believe he’s always the oracle, or just a human being who makes mistakes like you and I.
For me, he’s more of a semi-retired political pundit who has still too much influence within Singapore itself. And that makes it even more likely that he will make a lot of costly mistakes.
The biggest stumbling block to Spore’s progress is oldfart.
30 yrs ago he controlled copulation which screwed our population growth. Being the bloody control freak, he even attempted to control copulation between graduates but was doomed from the start.
Incentives for graduates did not work but disincentives for lesser mortals worked,
and this explains the setback to population growth.
Fast forward and it is still one incorrigible oldfart attempting to control copulation,
using so called incentives. Unfortunately no joy.
As some have pointed out including the naive apologists for oldfart’s policies, it is the stressful environment, uninspiring future, expensive housing, insecure jobs, low pay, high cost of living etc, that are turnoffs for copulation. Mainly self inflicted by oldfart’s govt policies.
As you can see, oldfart’s incentives do not work. How to ? when he is a bloody cheapskate to his people but obscenely generous with himself and his stooges.
Nevertheless I dare oldfart to apply disincentives to control copulation. Like imposing extra tax on singles, less tax rebate for couples who stop at two, reduced annual leave, higher COE, etc, etc .
The point is oldfart was successful in using disincentives to curb population growth but stopped short of applying the same measures to encourage population growth, simply because he knows there will be dire consequences.
The moral of the story is control of copulation is best done in animal farms.
Hey People…two wrong from our dear old mr LKY doesn’t make it right….but someone should tell him that 3 left does…
ok, that’s cold!
Hi All,
My view is importing of new citizens will not help our population issue but is actually a slow death in some way.
Why? For example, most of the new citizens from China do not have more than 2 children. Remember they came from a country that officially supports a “1-Child Policy” only till recently. Worse than our former “Stop at 2″ policy.
New citizens from India also normally do not have more than 2 children, expecially those who are of tertiary educational level.
So even when they arrive here, they cannot achieve the 2.11 replacement rate as mentioned by someone here.
Worse still, a significant number of these new couples actually apply for their parents to stay in Singapore. So in all, there are additional old people coming in as well, though I am not sure of the actual restrictions or criteria as set by the Immigration Department regarding influx of these type of dependents. Maybe someone who has insider knowledge would like to comment on this?
So, according to this scenario, our population issue will actually worsen in future!
It is true we have no local talent, we have to admit to that! We are fools ran by people likewise. We are like a cheap hotel, We are prostituting ourselves, We welcome anyone with talent…
The FTs are right… We locals are fools, we are ran using a whoring system.
Will the guest stay over for good? Will you love a prostitute? will you make love to a prostitute?
Some people think they will, they believe they will for a price or if the price is right. They dip their heads in the sand when times of danger. They look for the easiest way out. They look for the quickest solutions often ignoring justice and equality.
My voice is weak, my hands are tied. I have no talent, my “Ah tao or leadman” tells me that and he tells the world about it and i followed blindly.
mm is 100% correct this time.
And as history has proven, MM and his team of capable pioneering leaders, had managed to lead Singapore from nothing to something. Strategy changes as the environment and times changed. Policies too, and we are changing, aren’t we?
This article sets out to discredit MM and intentionally highlighted *only* the mistakes he may have made. There is no balanced coverage.
Overall, he has gotten the “big” and important things right, even if the calibration needs to be refined further, the overall intent was in Singapore’s interest.
We cannot simply write off one’s achievements, especially for someone like MM who had done much for Singapore. It is clear that we have indeed progressed since independence and that we remain an open and fair society.
It is not perfect but it is, at least, the best in the region.
78) Rina
My patience was rewarded. After 77 posts, finally you came and wrote something positive. Well done.
will we see a prime minister that is migrated from another country and become singaporean next time?
It is extremely saddening to witness someone reverred so much by his people before the Early Nineties to be so much scorn, despise and even hated today. And what would be the Histories of him and his Family in relation to the History of SIN ???
How do they feel, if and when they read the Socio-political Blogs from their citizens ??
patriot
[i]Rina on August 15th, 2009 11.05 pm And as history has proven, MM and his team of capable pioneering leaders,
We cannot simply write off one’s achievements, especially for someone like MM who had done much for Singapore. It is clear that we have indeed progressed since independence and that we remain an open and fair society.
It is not perfect but it is, at least, the best in the region.[/i]
the capable leaders were than dr goh keng swee barkers and rajaratnam inc…
not leekuanyew alone.
today where are those who retired? except leekuanyew himself
how many of you peeps know about foreign populations in singapoor?
you all mereLEE think we only allowed the talented degree holders in?
not on your nelly! First the oversea foreign talented degree holders
than they got married, if lucky they married a singapooriums if not tought luck
now instead of 1 foreign talent, we have 2 and so forth they brin in their spouses
(this is what happennin in europe when the india indian immigrants did that, they multiplied liked flies, this irked the locals angmors who is damn cheese off)
next step being filial children, don’t forget they are only 1 child policy in china
they bring in their parents, and their spouses’ parents (if applicable) worst scenerio is when they have siblins, they brin in the siblin’s log stocked and barrel!
i know of a few family who only have 1 localborn citizen, in his 5 room hdb flat, there are 6 foreign stayers, parents/siblin/nephew and nieces all imported
so now if anybody can add, we now have 6 or 7 foreign talents who take up our jobs instead of 1…
and remember i only mentioned 1 family…
go leekuanyew please do your sum since you are so accurate and clever
if this is called greatness and achiever….than hell must be paradise………
~sigh~
This week has been a emotionally painful week for me as we celebrate National Day. I constantly feel like crying when I’m reminded of a few things.
I love Singapore and her people very much. Yet I don’t recognize my home anymore.
My current and previous companies employs a lot more foreigners (which include PRs) than citizens. When I go to work everyday, I feel like working in a foreign country. The foreigners greatly outnumber us and we feel so alone.
My foreigner colleague (who is a PR) told me, “Your government said you cannot do without us. You guys need us. But to us, Singapore is just a stepping stone.” They crowded together, talked loudly like it’s their country and made crude jokes about us Singaporeans.
I can’t play my favourite NDP song “Home” in the office because I have been taught to be sensitive to the foreigners around me. I have to feel awkward playing a national day song in my very own country, whereas in my primary school days, we sang “Count on me Singapore” with all our hearts.
I see foreigners and PRs constantly getting employed… yet many of my Singaporean friends who just graduated are unable to find a job. They are desperate and helpless. Some signed up for SPUR courses.. yet they are rejected due to space constraint, because a huge number of PRs are also signing up for these courses.
I don’t know how to resolve this pain in my heart. As I walked out of my office past our National Flag yesterday, I stood there and saluted it, just like how I used to do in my NSF day. All because I love Singapore, and because I know that more than one third of our population won’t give a heck about our National Flag.
LKY has grown horibly senile and is probably not aware of it himself.
We as voters need to do a favor for him by voting him out in the next elections.
In a study entitled National Security Study Memorandum 200, under the direction of Henry Kissinger in 1974 stressed that only 13 countries are projected to account for 47 percent of the world population increase by the year 2050. This, it is argued, would undermine the stability of countries friendly to the US and therefore harmed the “national security” of the United States.
So thus thru the UN, US convinced (or rather coerced) the world the need for population control in the 70s (except itself of course) , and countries that do not implement them faces economic penalty.
Same recipe for US World dominance, as usual.
Any opposition party wants to take on Tanjong Pagar GRC? It’s time to tell him to go and fly kite.
Dear Singaporeans,
Your government’s cultural and social engineerings are no
worse than other major cities of the world.Take for an example in Canada,.Its cities
are so swarmed with Chinese from China that they jokingly call Canada,CHINADA.
Now,all levels of governments -federal,provincial and municipal have to be sensitive
to thier culture,habits,thier way of living and if not,those politicians would be afraid
they may lose their comfortable seats in public office.A colleague of mine just came
back from his home country Bulgaria ,there too its citizens witnessing large influx of
Chinese migrants from China and they are there setting businesses in the cities.
If Singaporeans think that by voting out PAP would somehow
see a better cultural landscape more appealing to them,they are in a piped dream.
Until now,I have not heard or see any of the oppositions stands on this issue.
Rina, the point of the article is that MM Lee is not always right. The population issue was his biggest blunder – and a very big one, and also the $50 billion loss by GIC.
Not only this old man is not alway right. He has beginning to show sign of greed like any other mortal men. For the record, this old man is the one that argued violently when questioned on why the ministers are subjected to the rocket high salary.
This old fox is beginning to show his tail and claim his nation building credit which does not belong to him other than bringing in foreigner investors to this tiny island.
Yes, I am sure the oppositions are eager for a share of the pie too?
If not for Singapore geographic location, I doubt he can succeed in bring people to invest here. Just as proven in the sir Stamford raffles days where there isn’t any saleman to bring the traders into the island at that time.
Maybe he should try bringing people to invest in country like Russia so that we can see how thia old saleman really fare.
@78) Rina on August 15th, 2009 11.05 pm
U are right in that there were positive things out of our leaders, especially in the 60′s, 70′s, maybe 80′s. Let nothing be taken from them in leading Singapore out of the Third World status — sure, some trumpet blowing is due. But how much is attributed to one person or the team is debatable. MM Lee is without doubts an exceptional man then, but he also had some good lieutenants. Can’t imagine someone like that clown of current STTA president been in the ranks of our previous batch of ministers.
Unfortunately times & situation change. Like chess, the opening moves may be inspiring, daring, able to achieve a good position for the player in the short-medium term. Onlookers are mesmerized. But as the game progresses, what was initially thought as a perfect strategy for victory could actually become a deathtrap. This could be because the player did not see the opponent’s change of tactics, or the player was too rigid with his play, or the player became complacent (read: MSK escape),..etc. The main point is the end result.
To me, Singapore has already lost the rooks, knights and queen. But unlike chess, the consequences are not suffered by the player himself; a whole nation is affected here. So, you can blow your trumpet. But what next? Can we ignore the failed policies? Or are you saying there is only good and no evil?
In other words, you can’t trust anyone?
[i]Maybe he should try bringing people to invest in country like Russia so that we can see how thia old saleman really fare.[/i]
who on earth would want to come to singapore to invest?
the russians all this while is NOT stupid!
the russians also knows how to count labours and materials value
in russia, labours are abundant, but because of the cold climates many industries would not fared well, so they turned to china with an added twist….
they setup a buyin house/syndicate in singapore as a ^FRONT^, no not money laundryin if some people were thinkin of that especially in the scholarship circles.
the russians are 1 smart cookies, they have the goods made in china with the label printed as assembled in europe makin singapore the buyin shippin houses in between.
whoever is thinkin of makin BIG in singapoor must be dreamin…
our labours cost/ura/hdb factories rentals are priced way way beyon market values, why should i pay a factory rental @ twiced or 3 times the rate i would had paid in thailand or in the phillippines? singapore also charged GST what not cheap hor @ 7% hor…. now you know why singapore tech inc shut down and moved to china themselves..worst some factories are in india new bangalor silicon valley of india…
we are FINISHED………………………
Finished? Some overseas idiot just planted billions of dollars in Jurong. The news must be false then?
Dear ILoveMyIslandHome,
I adore your piece and like yourself, I know too well that I am a proud native of this 645km sq of land. It may not be perfect, but it is a place I would not hesitate to call home.
And like yourself, I find that the influx of foreign immigrants have brought in a considerable amount of social tension in a progressive manner.
Our national pride and identity has been severely molested by leasees of our native land who are already beginning to think of their importance and vitality with , of course, the mega endorsement by our government.
I ask everyone this, with the opening threats to our social fabric being pathed by immigrants who are insulting our society, should we not defend our nationalistic pride and platform. Is the ever growing endoresement by our government to allow rapid immigration an act of deliberation to indirectly manhandle our once upon a time proud home??
If the government really do care for the masses, they would have been more engaging to aroused ideas to form possible solutions, from the grassroot to the elite classes of the soceity to counter situational problems, and in which the only solution for them right now is rapid growth in immigration.
As a cosmopolitan country and coincendantally a city as well, we do need expertise in the global sense. However to depress quality of living to this extend, we need to review who are foreign talents and who are simply just foreigners.
The obsession to atttained desirable instant results by enticing foreign migrants at a large scale is placing the term competition out of proportion.
When nationalistic pride has been severely thawed, history has shown repurcussions to the admnistrators responsible. In a peaceful context, citizens rally to have their voice heard and markign the end with a single shout through electoral process. In another, figures were established that without doubt uses the notion of nationalism to commit attrocities and violence to eradicate the root of the problem (read NAZI). As a proud Singaporean who believes that our country is a matured and pragmatic society, the latter would and should not take place.
And lastly, do judge this, is this act of deliberation an indirect conspiracy to commit treason of a systematic order?
where do the billions go to? black holes like GIC & TH? :P
i have no clue to what you hv written,,,hahaha
Doesn’t matter what or how many times MM Lee is proven wrong.
But he never got it wrong on one VERY VERY IMPORTANT THING. And for the past 44 years. That is every election, PAP won at least 98% of the seats.
That’s why he is still needed as mentor to ensure this will happen again and again in future.
Don’t you think this is very important?