Life in cities more densely populated than Singapore

So much has been said recently about the optimum population size for Singapore further to the government's recent white paper on population growth - are there already too many people in Singapore at 5 million? Or should the population be 8 or even 9 million? Do the government's plans make sense?  This has resulted in a lot of very passionate debate amongst Singaporeans and certainly, as I look at the recent updates amongst my Facebook friends in Singapore, I get a sense of how they feel on this issue:

"You want 6.9 mil and you keep taking trains out of service at peak hours, maintain the same old frequency? Fucking hell. Fuck you PAP and please just shove it."

"Have the PAP ministers ever tried getting on the MRT from Ang Mo Kio at 7:30 am in the morning? Clearly not. Everyone has a car, so they don't need to fight to squeeze onto the MRT in the morning. Fuck the PAP. So glad these fuckers lost in Punggol East." 

"Every morning MRT commute an ordeal. Tempers flared, boiling points reached, mothers unknowingly cussed into oblivion, pushing that led to shoving... I shudder to think what a population of 7 million crammed into a space of 700sq km would be like then. Hopefully I would've moved away to a better country by then!" 

Yes you get the idea. The sentiment tends to be very much against any further growth, but being the kind of social blogger I am, let's treat this as a social geography exercise and explore the issue without getting emotional about it, shall we? Now let's look at  two different sets of statistics to begin with. Firstly, there is the list of most densely populated countries/sovereign states in the world - this would show Singapore at no. 3 in this list.

1. Macau - 19,610 persons/km2

2. Monaco - 17,676 persons/km2

3. Singapore - 7546 persons/km2

4. Hong Kong - 6482 persons/km2

5. Gibraltar - 4250 persons/km2

However, let's look at a slightly different list now - the most densely populated cities in the world. Number one on that list is in fact Manila, in the Philippines. Macau makes it in at 44 on that list (which only lists the top 49 in the world) and neither Monaco nor Singapore appear on that list at all. Here's the top five on that list just to give you an idea of just how densely populated these cities are. 

1. Manila - 43,079  persons/km2

2. Bogor (Indonesia) - 40,169  persons/km2

3. Titagarh (India) - 38,337  persons/km2

4. Baranagar (India) - 35,220  persons/km2

5. Serampore (India) - 33,649  persons/km2

Hong Kong: a crowded city

In contrast to any of the cities in that list - Singapore doesn't feel crowded at all. However, one country does stand out on that list - India. There are more cities in India than any other country on that list, this is hardly surprising as many rural Indians are migrating to their booming cities in search for better opportunities in education and employment, leading to a huge surge in their urban populations. Nonetheless, there are some very crowded Western cities on that list as well, notably: 

13. Levallois Perret (France) - 26,126  persons/km2

17. Vincennes (France) - 24,802  persons/km2

19. Saint-Mandé (France) - 24,714 persons/km2

20. Le Pré-Saint-Gervais (France) - 24,635 persons/km2

21. Saint Josse ten Noode (Belgium) - 23,235 persons/km2

26. Montrouge (France) - 22,464 persons/km2

33. Paris (Central only, not suburbs) France - 20,741 persons/km2

43. Saint-Gilles (Belgium) - 18,623 persons/km2

Now for those of you not familiar with your suburbs of Paris and Brussels, allow me to explain. Because of the way the data was compiled by each region, a place like Levallois Perret is counted as a 'city' rather than simply a suburb of Paris. In fact all the French 'cities' in the list above are simply different suburbs of Paris spaced around the periphery of central Paris (which does make it into the list at no. 33). So in Singapore, you can either look at the statistics of the city/country as a whole, or break it down into Tampines, Bedok,  Bishan, Clementi, Woodlands etc. So the list above demonstrates just how densely populated the suburbs of Paris are. Likewise, both Saint Josse ten Noode and Saint-Gilles are different parts of Brussels - which like Paris, is a densely populated city.

How many of you realized Paris is very densely populated?

Now another place which is strangely missing from that list on Wikipedia is Manhattan (perhaps it's because of the way the data is compiled). New York is a huge city made of five boroughs but if we were to focus on the borough of Manhattan whilst ignoring the other four boroughs of New York, then you have one of the most densely populated urban areas in the Western world at 26,939 persons/km2. 

Given that I have lived in Paris as a student and I have just returned from a stint in Belgium, I want to compare Singapore with Paris and Brussels which are far more densely populated than Singapore, Macau and Monaco. I will also draw comparisons with London where I live - which has a slightly lower population density of 5206 persons/km2 and of course with Manhattan as well, as I do know New York rather well. 

So if Singapore, with an area of 710 km2, grows her population to 8 million, the population density at 8 million will be = 11,268 persons/km2. At 9 million, it will be 12,676 persons/km2. That's a lot more than what is currently the case in Singapore, but still much less than Paris, Manhattan or Brussels. Now a visit to these cities can be a really pleasant experience - I have covered France in my Tourist Season series last year and would totally recommend Paris to all my readers. I shall be doing a similar piece on Belgium sometime soon. Are Manhattan, Paris and Brussels overcrowded? Not really, is the answer. the cities are overcrowded despite being densely populated. Here are the reasons why. 

These cities are very expensive places to live in - trying to rent a nice apartment in the city centre is something strictly for those with nice jobs and a fat pay cheque. If you're poor, forget about having a central Paris address! This is why the poor in Paris are simply priced out of the market and they move out into the suburbs like Levallois Perret and Montrouge. Nonetheless, they are still served by very good train system which allows them to still commute into central Paris if that's where their work is. Hence New Yorkers and Parisians have the option of moving out of town. When I was a student in Paris, I had a small studio apartment in the 16th arrondisement in the west of Paris - it was perfect for a student living on his own but it would have been impossible for two people to try to live in that studio. That was in 1999 - today, most students are priced out of central Paris altogether.

Now for a similar pattern to emerge in Singapore, the poor in Singapore would have to be able to move to Johor Bahru and beyond in order to find a home of similar size in Johor where it is far cheaper than Singapore. However, the practicalities of living in Malaysia instead of Singapore makes this idea unthinkable for most Singaporeans. The thought of spending hours queuing up at passport control twice a day to get to and from work is daunting to say the least regardless of what mode of transport you choose. 

Is moving to Malaysia even a realistic option?

The main reason why Paris and Brussels thrives is because of the element of choice - in a big country like France or Belgium, you can choose to either be city dwellers or countryside folk. In Singapore, there simply isn't that element of choice - not unless immigration rules between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are relaxed further. Certainly, Malaysia and Indonesia might welcome rich Singaporeans to go to Johor and the Riau Islands to spend some money there, but it is not the rich Singaporeans who would want to move out of Singapore, quite on the contrary. It would be those at the bottom of the food chain who are looking for cheaper alternatives to Singapore - imagine you are a resident in Johor or Batam, how would you feel about these kind of Singaporeans moving to your neighbourhood? Certainly, they won't be welcomed - that's why lower-income Singaporeans are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They're slowly being priced out of their home country but unlike Parisians or New Yorkers - they have no where to go.

When I was travelling around Sri Lanka, the bus made a brief stop in a small town - it is customary for these buses to make stops every hour or two for the passengers to use the toilets and stretch their legs a little. Now I remember just how ridiculously cheap the food was in that town - I bought a lot of different snacks and fruits and realized that I had spent just about 200 LKR (£1/S$2). Why was food that cheap in this little Sri Lankan town? It was because the shop keeper knew that if he had made the food any more expensive (eg. by using better quality ingredients, which were available), many locals would not afford it and it simply wouldn't sell. There were very few rich people around to push up the prices - so I got me a bargain that day.

Limpeh in Sri Lanka.

In sharp contrast, what you do get in a places like central Paris, central Brussels and Manhattan is a great concentration of very rich people who can afford to live the high life in these cosmopolitan cities. For the rich who can afford to buy a lovely penthouse in down town Manhattan, they're not bothered by the state of public transport as they already live so close to where they work and where the heart of the city is (for Singaporeans: imagine living on Orchard Road). If they do need to cross town, they either have their own cars or can afford taxis.

Let's look at a case study - a good friend of mine from Singapore moved to New York upon his ORD. Let's call him Ken. Ken first studied there and then he got a job upon graduation. He has since received his Green Card and is a permanent resident in America. He lives in down town Manhattan in a small apartment which he owns and runs his own company, an IT consultancy which employs about ten people. He's 37 and single, works hard and is doing very well financially. Indeed, he is pretty typical of the kind of rich professionals who have flocked to New York for this kind of lifestyle - nothing is cheap in Manhattan, but as he earns a lot of money, he can afford the high prices.

I have visited Ken in New York and have seen the kind of apartment he lives in - it isn't big but the location is fantastic. His neighbours are all rich working professionals (doctor, lawyers, accountants, designers, engineers etc), either single or couples but none of them have any children. He proudly tells me that it is a child-free block - couples who decide to have children will move somewhere else for more space. His kitchen is tiny but he said, "Oh I don't cook at all, I normally get a take-away - yes it's more expensive but I just don't have the time to cook. I get home from work in the evening... do I want to spend an hour now cooking or do I just wanna relax?" Now take Ken's block and multiply that many times over and over again over the entire Manhattan and you get the idea - that is the kind of place Manhattan is, is Singapore headed in that direction? The question that comes to mind is this: if you are not rich and successful like Ken, then what kind of future do you have in Singapore?  

Let's focus on Ken's tiny kitchen for a moment for it does illustrate a point about being able to cope in a high population density environment.  Here's a funny story about New Yorkers converting their kitchens into closets to store their clothes. This is pretty much what Ken does. In order for these people to do without a kitchen, they don't cook - they simply eat out or get a take away. This is an expensive option as it is always cheaper to buy the raw ingredients and make your own meals at home. I am going to use London as a case study as I am far more familiar with London prices.

A meal out in London would usually cost you at least £8 to £10 even if it is quite basic. Of course it can cost a lot more if you go somewhere fancy! I've been having a few early dinners before each show this week and typically, I'll get some something like a hot dish and a drink and it usually in the £8 to £10 range for something like that. I don't have the luxury of going home to cook as I get one hour's break when we rest between afternoon rehearsals/debriefing and the start of the evening show - hence I cannot venture very far from work and believe you me, there aren't many cheap places to eat on the Strand or in Covent Garden! Such is the nature of eating out - if you gave me £10 to spend at the supermarket, I would be able to buy enough food to prepare at least four meals, given that I can get a big chicken for like £4 at the supermarket (and I am a good cook!).

I love cooking - it's a big part of my daily routine.

Hence rich New Yorkers like Ken as still able to enjoy quality food because he can afford to eat out all the time - however, I note that some of my fellow actors who aren't as financially comfortable as I am are either reduced to buying the very cheapest options for their meals (eg. fast food) or bringing a packed meal from home, rather than buy something to eat in the West End. Hey, I work a day job then go to perform in the evening, affectively working from 9 am to 11 pm these days (with breaks of course)  = over 70 hours a week - that's why I can afford to eat out and they can't because they're doing theatre and nothing else. This illustrates what it is like to be able to live comfortably in a big city like London or New York - you need money. Money can solve all kinds of problems relating to space - Ken has effectively done away with his kitchen and still eats well, whilst poorer people need to have a kitchen for cooking as that's really the only way they can have decent meals because they can't afford to eat out.

Furthermore, Ken lives alone - so in terms of the amount of floor space he has, whilst his apartment isn't big, he actually does have the entire space to himself. Compare that to say a family with three children in a 2 room HDB flat: the amount of living space each family member has is the area of the flat divided by 5 = less space per person than Ken. Living on your own is an expensive option because there are certain fixed costs associated with each apartment = heating (or in the case of Singapore, air-con), electricity, water, internet, etc. Take the amount one spends on heating to keep a flat warm in winter - it doesn't matter whether there are 5 people or just one person in the flat, you still need to the same amount of energy to warm the flat to a comfortable temperature and if there are 5 people benefiting from the heating, then the heating bill is split 5-ways. People like Ken have expensive lifestyles but they can afford it as they're rich: he is the typical kind of professional in New York: single or in a relationship but NO children.

Can you afford the high life in Singapore?

There is another effect when population density increases - prices are driven up when resources are scarce. Housing is a huge concern obviously for many young Singaporeans who wonder if they will ever be able to buy their own flats if prices keep increasing. Ironically, this expectation that you will own your own home eventually doesn't really exist in the West but for some reason, it is so prevalent in Singapore. Why is this so?  Is this part of the Singaporean dream that Singaporeans choose to buy into? Sure we would love to get onto the property ladder, but there is a sense of entitlement amongst Singaporeans that I don't understand - simply because it is so unjustified. In cities like London, New York and Paris, home ownership figures are lower than in Singapore simply because fewer people manage to get on the property ladder and many get on it later in life. That will probably be a reality that Singaporeans will have to accept - but many do have the luxury of inheriting their parents' properties even if they can't afford their own.

With this scarcity in properties, the highest bidder will always win so it doesn't matter if there are 5, 6, 7 or 8 million people in Singapore - a very rich man will always still be able to access the kind of property he desires on the market because he will be able to outbid everyone else who gets in his way. Such is the nature of supply and demand - it is basic economics and that is why big cities like New York, Paris and Brussels see such a big concentration of very rich people who have chosen to live in these very densely populated cities.

Limpeh in Paris. 

This isn't always a bad thing - there are winners and there are loser. Simply walk down Fifth Avenue in New York or the Champs-Élysées in Paris and you can feel the money in the air. Loads of rich people being concentrated in one place can fuel an entire economy: that of luxury goods and services, from posh restaurants to designer boutiques to 5-star hotels, welcome to the playground of the ultra-rich. Heck, simply take a walk around Marina Bay Sands and look at some of the boutiques there - would MBS exist if there wasn't a big enough concentration of rich people to sustain it in Singapore? Who are the people who benefit most from the whole MBS project?

Now perhaps you have heard this analogy used before: you would rather sell just one bag for $2000 than have to sell 10 bags for $200 because you don't have to work as hard for the same amount of money. The revenue is same, $2000. But if you had to sell 1000 bags at $2 each to make that same $2000 - then your poor salesperson has had to work a lot harder or that same money. This is why it makes sense to maximize your revenue by going for the high-end of the market. When you do get a big enough concentration of rich people in one place, then the market is going to start filling with retailers and service providers who want to tap into this pool of wealth. A by-product of this process is low-end budget retailers and service providers being squeezed out of the market by their higher value counterparts.

Why do so many Singaporeans think that Singapore is already too full?

Let's imagine a shopping centre somewhere on Orchard Road Singapore that has been around for a while - a popular American fashion retailer opens their flagship store in that shopping centre and suddenly, everyone wants to shop there and that shopping centre becomes very popular. The upper floors of the shopping centre were filled with independent retailers offering fairly cheap clothes. The landlord realizes that he is sitting on a gold mine and immediately doubles the rent for everyone in the shopping centre - so a budget fashion retailer on the top floor of that shopping centre has two choices: either he has to leave that shopping centre and find a new retail space elsewhere, or he can increase the price of his clothes to try to raise more money for his increased rent. If he does choose to leave, his unit will be taken over by a business that can afford the higher rent because they are selling higher value products. Shoppers looking for bargains will stop going to that shopping centre and they will be replaced by people looking for the latest fashions regardless of price. The nature of that shopping centre will change. If every shopping centre in that area makes that same change, then the entire neighbourhood will change - and so on.

In short, poor people will feel more and more out of place in the Singapore of the future. It will become a playground for the rich and there is definitely plenty of money in Singapore - it is after all the third richest country in the world. However, the income inequality is a big problem and too much of the wealth is held in the hands of a small number of ultra-rich residents. Yet they are the ones with the wealth and can spend $2000 on a bag, where does that leave the rest of the country then if most business follow the "sell one bag for $2000, not one hundred bags for $20" principle? Even if the population of Singapore increased to 10 or 15 million, the rich people will always be able to access anything they want: nice homes, places in good private schools for their children, quality private transport simply because they can outbid the rest of you. The quality of life will only diminish for those unable to outbid the rest of the market - the poor, but does the government really care if the poor will keep voting for the PAP regardless of what the future holds for them? Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas. Cue palm to forehead.

Can you outbid everyone who stands in your way between you and the life you want?

I have a vivid memory from Dubai when I was working there - this happened at the Mall of the Emirates, a huge retail paradise in Dubai complete with the world's biggest indoor ski slope. There is even this part of the mall called 'Rodeo Drive' (yes named after the street in Beverly Hills) filled with nothing but the most expensive designer boutiques. Now on this day, there were a bunch of Indian workers who had been working on a nearby construction site walking around 'Rodeo Drive'. Clearly, from the way they were dressed, there was no way they could have afforded any of the designer goods in the boutiques in the Mall - but they were enjoying the air-con comfort of the mall (it gets crazy hot in Dubai in the day) and just liked window shopping. Whilst they did look a bit out of place, they weren't causing any trouble. I wasn't going to buy anything either but I was left to browse in the shops in peace because I was with a group of white European friends. (Yes that kind of racism is pretty blatant in the Middle East.)

I noticed one of the shop managers (who looked Middle Eastern) getting really upset when some of these Indian construction workers hovered around the entrance of his very chic boutique (they were just window shopping outside the shop). He asked the security guard to throw them out of the mall - ironically, the security guard was Indian as well. When then followed was this conversation (in Hindi or Urdu I think) in front of the shop, whilst I don't understand Hindi/Urdu, I could pretty much guess what was being said.

Who are the malls for? 

Security guard: I'm sorry, but I am going to have to ask you to leave.

Construction workers: What have we done? We were just looking.

Security guard: I'm sorry, please leave now. I'm just doing my job. Please don't make trouble.

Construction workers: We weren't making trouble! We're just looking!

Security guard: This kind of mall is not for people like you, do you understand?

Construction workers: You're Indian too! You speak Urdu/Hindi like us!

Security guard: I work here, I'm just doing my job. Please leave now before I call the police.

Construction workers: You're just like us, you come from India to come and work here in Dubai like us, yet you think you're better than us? How dare you talk to us like that.

The construction workers did leave in the end, but not before making their feelings known. The shop manager then apologized to my friends and I for their presence, assuring us that his was a very exclusive boutique. We were so disgusted by his attitude we left immediately - one of my friends said, "I can't believe the way you treated those people," to which, the manager replied, "I'm running a business here, I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to make money." Mind you, I've already witnessed something like that in Singapore. What if it happened to you? What if you got turned away from a building if it was deemed that you weren't good enough for that space? How would you feel about that?

A mall in Dubai 

But we're too late - it's happening already. What that will mean for the next generation should the population rise to 7 or even 9 million is this: there is no room for failure. Parents will be bludgeoning their kids through even more rigorous and unforgiving tuition to make sure their kids turn out to be straight-A scholars rather than below average students as the prospect of growing up poor in Singapore is just too grim. "You can have a great life in Singapore - but you need to be able to outbid anyone who gets in your way if you want to access this great life Singapore has to offer", parents will tell their kids. Heck, the COE system already works like that for car ownership in Singapore - Singaporeans, you may as well get used to it, that principle will become the norm in Singapore very soon.

Does this always have to be like this? No, it doesn't. After all, short of imposing some kind of residents permit (such as in North Korea and the Hukou system in China), you can't stop people from moving to New York from other parts of America. In the case of Singapore, this growth is artificially fuelled by importing vast numbers of migrants from other countries - so unlike the case of New York or Paris, this urban growth is completely artificial and a direct result of the policies of the Singaporean government. It is at best a piece of social engineering that has been carried out without the consent of most of the population of Singapore.

The acid test of any such social engineering experiments is whether there are more winners than losers - and is it fair to assume that there will be more losers than winners at this stage? You be the judge, please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Thanks for reading.