What is the Optimum Population for Singapore?

So much has been debated by netizens over the Singapore government's recent white paper on population growth - my last topic did generate some hot debate. I have to state for the record that I am anti-PAP, I do not support the PAP at all, let's get that out of the way please - however, I feel that as a social commentator and blogger, it is important for me to remain objective and try to look at the issue from an academic point of view, rather than an emotional one. I suppose living in London rather than Singapore allows me the luxury of remaining calm and objective since I am not trying to get the MRT from Ang Mo Kio into town at 7:30 am in the morning like some of my readers.

The topic I shall address today is that of Optimum Population - it is a concept that geographers talk about in terms of population density. There are five measures to ascertain what the optimum population is for an area and let's check the PAP's white paper against these measures to see if the Optimum Population for Singapore is indeed 6.9 million - of course there are other issues, but let's have a look at these five for now.

1. Decent wealth and resources to everyone

Now there is no doubt that Singapore is an extremely rich country as a whole - currently, it is the third richest country, but the challenge of looking at the issue of wealth and resources is that of fairness. Note that this is not simply measuring a country's economic output by GNP per capita or any other measure - note the word 'everyone' in this definition. The wealth gap and income distribution in Singapore is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with before it gets worse, however, there simply isn't the political will to do so.

Can the PAP be blamed for this? No, is the answer. There is a certain culture unique to Singapore on this aspect - redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor would be carried out via higher taxation for the rich. There is a huge resistance - no, it's more than resistance, an incredible hatred for any concept of a welfare state in Singapore. This is, of course, in part fuelled by a misunderstanding of what actually happens in the West, in countries like the UK and Australia where there is in fact a welfare state.

There is wealth in Singapore but in whose hands?

My dad comes up with some really ridiculous bullshit about how unemployed people in the West can get huge pay outs from the governments to live very comfortable lifestyles whilst hardworking honest folks are taxed to breaking point. All completely untrue of course, but that is why people like my dad are vehemently against any idea of him having to pay more taxes - "I worked hard all my life, I wake up early in the morning to go to work to provide for my family. Why should I subsidize lazy people who refuse to work hard like me? How is that fair?"

I can see my dad's point - like my dad, I am a workaholic who is currently putting in 70+ hours a week doing two jobs and my work day starts at 9 am and ends after 11 pm from Monday to Fridays and I work about 6 to 7 hours on a Saturday. I reap the rewards of my hard work and can afford to live a more comfortable lifestyle compared to some of my peers. When I look at my tax bill, I do wonder sometimes if my dad has a point?

You reap what you sow... or do you?

As it is, the current system in Singapore does generate a lot of wealth, but the wealth is held in the hands of a small number of individuals who are very rich whilst the poor are left behind. Is there a moral argument to justify this? That rich people are rich because they work very much harder than the poor - that you reap what you sow? Everyone has their own take on the issue - it is not for me to tell you how you should feel on that touchy topic, but what I can see is a reluctance by the PAP to address the issue of the wealth gap in Singapore.

As explained in my previous post, in a crowded city with limited resources, the rich will always have access to the kind of lifestyle they desire because they will always be able to outbid everyone who stands in their way. Where does this leave those who do not have the means to outbid their richer counterparts? Take the property market for example - market forces pretty much determine what properties go for in the private market and it is simply a function of supply and demand. There is a fundamental difference between the UK and Singapore in this aspect though - in Singapore, if you can't afford your own home, the cultural solution is simply "live with your parents". In the UK, the government steps in and allows you to rent a council home from them at a heavily discounted price if you do qualify for council housing.

Many Singaporeans go out of their way to justify why they choose to live at home with your parents - it has become a cultural norm, they claim to enjoy big happy families living together and some even falsely claim that they are taking care of their aged parents. What a big fat lie - the truth is that many of these Singaporean adults are still relying on their aged parents for everything from meals to laundry to cleaning services; this is compounded by the fact that they don't have enough money to afford a place of their own - hence they have no choice but to live with their aged parents even late into their adult life. It's pretty pathetic and most of all, it is a temporary fix to a problem with serious long term consequences. A section of lower income Singaporeans would never be able to outbid their richer counterparts when it comes to getting onto the property market and unless the government is willing to be a lot more generous with such people, there will be a side effect of this situation. Let's look at a case study.

Mr and Mrs Tan have two sons - neither of the sons were particularly bright at school and ended up with low-paid jobs. There are 4 of them living in Mr and Mrs Tan's 2-room HDB flat. Both sons eventually get married but neither of them can afford to move out. So now you have 6 people living in the same flat. Now both sons each have 2 children, so the number of people sharing that flat increases to 10. What is the effect on Mr and Mrs Tan's quality of life when their living space is being reduced like that?

How much living space do you have in your home?

Eventually Mr and Mrs Tan dies, so the number of people in the flat goes down to 8 - but then the 4 grandchildren grow up and get married and as none of them can afford to move out, they invite their spouses to live in the same flat - which results in the total number of people in the flat increasing to 12. Now imagine if a next generation came along - you get the idea. Each subsequent generation is worse off unless one of them is smart enough to become high successful and rich enough to outbid the rest of the market and purchase his own home - and there's no guarantee of that happening. So the future is bright for those who do have the resources to outbid the rest of the market - for the rest, the future is bleak, very bleak indeed. Check out this fascinating study which demonstrates how the average Singaporean has a Russian standard of living.

PS. You LIVE with your parents, you don't STAY with your parents - that's a common mistake you Singaporeans make. Live = being at an address for a substantial period of time. "When I was growing up in Singapore, I lived in Ang Mo Kio." But stay = a transient period, being at an address a short time. "I will be staying with my friend Jane when I visit Glasgow this weekend." Get it? Live = many years, stay = a few days, or a few weeks at most.

Where do you live? (not stay, live)

2. Basic human rights for everyone

LOL. Human rights? Are you freaking kidding me? This is Singapore we're talking about. The majority of Singaporeans vehemently oppose this white paper on population yet it was endorsed entirely in parliament by all the PAP MPs. I can only laugh at the stupid idiots who right statements like "I hope the PAP wake up and realize that..." How fucking stupid are you to think that? The PAP know exactly what they're doing - they're not stumbling accidentally into a mistake - this is a well planned, well coordinated programme which makes complete sense from their point of view. It's the 60.14% who are ridiculously stupid and don't realize what voting for the PAP means for them in the long run.

3. Preservation of cultural identity

This is a tough one admittedly - after all, one thing that defines us as Singaporeans this evolution of our cultural identity. We're not like say, the Koreans or the Japanese who have a very clear concept of their culture and heritage. Now my grandparents spoke Hokkien and Hakka as their mother tongue and had a good grasp of Malay as a second language - they spoke very little Mandarin and no English at all. My father speaks primarily in Mandarin whilst my mother speaks in Singlish and Hokkien. And amongst my siblings and I, we speak primarily in English to each other even though we do speak Hokkien, Malay and Mandarin as well - but we always default to English.

Clearly, the cultural identity of each generation is rather different and this is because of our education system and the kind of experiences we have as a result of these differences. My dad would have absolutely no idea whom Lady Gaga is - but to many younger Singaporeans, her music form an important part of their cultural experience as they identify with the emotions expressed through her music, such as being caught in an unhealthy relationship (Bad Romance) or a rallying call for equality (Born This Way).

So there is a dilution of what it means to be Singaporean as young Singaporeans absorb more and more cultural influences from all over the world - from Hollywood to K-pop to Bollywood. Should we be so afraid of change? After all, Singlish is a language that was born out of this process, likewise Singdarin is something that is unique to Singapore. In any case, even in countries like Japan and Korea - their cultural identity isn't something that is so sacred that nobody ever dares to change it, their culture does evolve and change with time as well. So I am on the fence on this one - I do think that new immigrants need to pass some kind of test (as in the UK) when it comes to national history and culture as well as an English test to ensure that new migrants have both the knowledge and linguistic ability to fit in, but otherwise I have a very holistic approach to the issue of cultural identity.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed by that - I know many Singaporeans are pissed off at the way many new migrants have absolutely no concept of what Singaporean culture is and they do come across as very different; but then again, I look at the way my cultural identity is so different from that of my parents and my grandparents. Are they any less Singaporean just because they're different - or is there more than one way to be Singaporean?

4. Allowance of intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity

I refer you to the point above on human rights. I don't think there's going to be so much a problem on the technological front, I do worry about the restrictions placed on any kind of intellectual or artistic development within the context of such heavy censorship. Wouldn't this simply drive those who wish to explore their artistic and/or intellectual ambitions abroad? After all, we only have so many productive years in our adult lives - why would any one want to sacrifice those in an environment which isn't suitable and will only lead to frustration and possibly problems with the authority, such as in the recent case of the film maker Lynn Lee who had been interviewing subjects on the issue of Singaporean police brutality during the SMRT strike.

5. Preservation of biodiversity

Now this is going to be a major issue. With 6.9 million people squeezed into an island this size, something has got to give - that means building new homes where there was previously parkland or nature reserves. I think many Singaporeans of the older generation really don't understand this issue - my dad used to say something like, "you want to see jungle? Just go to Johor in Malaysia, plenty of jungle there."

Plenty of jungle in Malaysia....

I suppose I am being sentimental about my childhood - I went to a primary school that no longer exists called Sembawang Hills Estate School. It was demolished in the early 1990s to make way for more housing - but I remember as a child taking long walks after school along Old Upper Thomson Road with my friends and appreciating nature. The nature reserve that surrounded Lower and Upper Pierce Reservoir was our playground and what that experience gave me was an appreciation and respect for nature that you couldn't get from a textbook or from beautiful garden. There was something serene and timeless about our rainforests, it was here long before humans came along and it has always part of our landscape. Losing what little nature reserves and parkland we have left in Singapore would mean our younger generations to come would lose this connection with nature and with it, a respect for preserving it.

What kind of relationship do you want our younger generation to have with nature? I remember talking about the kinds of birds we could spot in our school yard with my primary school classmates - the different colours, the different kinds of sounds each bird would make, what kind of food they ate etc. Ask any primary school child today and chances are, they would know more about Angry Birds than the any kind of real birds that may actually dwell in their school yard.

Conclusion

So there you go, that's my analysis of the issue within the context of Optimum Population - my conclusion is that it is not population number per se that is the issue, but the attitude of the government towards so many issues such as censorship, human rights, preservation of nature, supporting the arts & culture, education, environmental issues as well as closing the wealth gap. Of course, straying into overpopulation would present all kinds of new problems - but even as it is, at 5.2 million there are so many problems already, it is not as if Singapore is great as it is at 5.2 million. So please, we need to look at all these other issues as well rather than just focussing on the population numbers per se.

One issue that I didn't cover is the quality of the new citizens - many Singaporeans don't have an issue with new migrants if they come with the right attitude and are willing to commit to making Singapore their new home. However, the PAP is making a terrible mistake by importing too many lowly skilled PRC migrants who don't speak English and have no desire to assimilate. In this rush to increase the population size, the PAP has sacrificed quality for quantity and that, IMHO, is a hideously stupid mistake. What's even more stupid my dear readers, are the Singaporeans who still vote for the PAP after having witnessing such alarming stupidity on their part. Geez. It's the blind leading the blind, the stupid leading the even more stupid. I despair and am glad I have long left Singapore.

Let me know what you think. Feel free to leave a comment below, thanks!