[stephenkhoo]

Making more babies is hard to do
Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE

Despite the government’s worry over poor birthrate, few Singaporeans are moved by the sense of urgency to go forth and multiply.
SINGAPORE is starting 2013 with another attempt to produce what the nation’s rising wealth cannot give – more babies.

The fundamental dilemma, which has led to a much-disliked era of mass immigration, is beginning to split the country.

The current poor birthrate, one of the world’s lowest, is worrying the government a lot more than the bulk of the citizenry.Citizens considered as a group

For the public, the prospect of losing jobs to new arrivals is far more threatening than the prospective population decline in the coming decades.

Together with an ageing population, the poor procreation is very real and threatens Singapore’s future prosperity, if nothing is done.

So why are so few Singaporeans moved by the government’s sense of urgency?

There may be a rationale for it.

Firstly, the general lethargy towards the issue could be due to the frequent government explanation that employers badly need foreign workers.

To many, it gives the impression that the population issue is less important than economic targets.

Secondly, many people seem to perceive it as government propaganda to justify bringing in more foreign workers – rather than as prevention of long-term decline of Singapore.

All this dates back to the tough-minded Lee Kuan Yew regime, which had always believed in fast action and damned public consultation.

True to tradition, the People’s Action Party (PAP) government has been largely following this do-first-talk-later tradition in resolving the population dilemma.

It could be due to a confidence that today – like decades ago – the government would always have the ability to talk its people into accepting unpopular decisions.

On immigration as with a few other matters, it has been proven wrong – something Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may be trying to put right.

In his New Year message, Lee admitted that it is necessary to seek consensus on the population issue – after his government had already admitted two million foreigners into Singapore.

It is possible that had the PAP government consulted first with its people on the magnitude of the population problem and gained their understanding before acting, the dilemma would be less serious.

The understanding could not possibly have involved a floodgate opening, but a controlled immigration just enough to resolve a babies shortfall – not a big population hike.

After all, the rationale for replacement was quite urgent; but instead of persuading first, it began mass importation of foreigners.

Instead of replacement, it went for a large population expansion.

This had the effect of making subsequent action seem a little irrelevant.

It appears that the Prime Minister, by calling for a national consensus on population, is playing catch-up on something the government ought to have done much earlier.

Singaporeans, it had been proven many times, are a pragmatic people, who – if given a clear rationale of a national problem – would, I believe, have joined the government in finding a solution.

I want to give the problem a new airing later this month.

The Prime Minister will unveil a new help package in Parliament to boost Singapore’s birthrate that will cover housing and childcare.

At the same time, the government will issue a White Paper on population.

In his National Day Rally last year, Lee outlined some of the possible measures to encourage parenthood.

They included giving couples with young children higher priority for Housing Board flats, a Medisave (for healthcare) account for each newborn and allowing fathers to take paternity leave.

Low- and middle-income families could get more help for infant care and childcare.

There have already been a series of pro-marriage and procreation measures in the past decade.

Previous attempts have failed to reverse the trend, with handouts of as much as S$18,000 per child, extended maternity leave and tax breaks not very successful to get Singaporeans to produce more babies.

Singapore’s birth rate dropped last year to 1.26 babies per woman of childbearing age, a record low – compared with a rate of 5.8 in the 1960s.

The problem facing the country is that more people are staying single or marrying late.

Those who are married are having their first child later and have fewer babies.

Older Singaporeans say the low fertility rate is evident on Singapore’s streets.

A 72-year-old retiree recalled seeing pregnant women “everywhere he went in Singapore” in the late 60s. “As a pre-teen, I would see them in Chinatown, in Queenstown, at marketplaces and so on.

“Today, as I bicycle all over the island, it would be rare to see a single one,” he added.

That was before the launch of the Stop at Two campaign by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1970 to slow down the post-war baby boom.

Parents of third babies and large families were financially penalised.

Top priority in top-tier primary schools would be given only to children whose parents had been sterilised before the age of 40.

Today, an average of only 40,000 babies are born a year. Reversing the trend is proving to be a lot tougher than raising the country’s gross domestic product.

A public survey by Channel News Asia showed some 94% of people believed the impending measures would not encourage more Singaporeans to have babies.

Critics say there need to be a dramatic change from the “rat race” environment – cheaper cost of living, especially housing, better job security, more living space – before more babies appear.

But there was the other side of the story.

The Economist ranked Singapore as the sixth best country for a baby to be born in, a creditworthy achievement – if only parents truly believe

[stephenkhoo]

Singapore's elite speaks out
Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
THE government is facing increasing pressure over some of its ill-conceived policies, not only from its citizens – but increasingly from the elite as well.

This reflects the changing face of politics. So far, the party has handled it with a one-step-forward, two-steps-backward manner, giving in on a few cases but hitting back on others.

The elite critics are people who hail directly or indirectly from the People’s Action Party (PAP) government or its institutions.

Traditionally, these people were overly reticent about revealing true political thoughts, let alone criticising the government. This was especially during the rule of Lee Kuan Yew.

Now with the aid of the Internet and under a generally more relaxed regime of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, a small number is speaking up alongside the new public mood.

Recent examples include:

> A grassroots leader for 20 years writing to the Prime Minister, telling him of his growing disenchantment about the state of affairs here and within the ruling party;

> An increasingly outspoken journalism professor with government connection condemning the lack of media freedom in Singapore, and incurring the wrath of the state university; and

> A PAP backbencher, Inderjit Singh surprising everyone by speaking out strongly in Parliament against the government’s population expansion policy.

However, because the Party Whip was in place, Inderjit told an interviewer later he could not vote against it. Instead, he did not vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

According to Hansard, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (who suffers a heart ailment) was absent with permission – but five other PAP MPs who were present also – for some reason – did not vote for the Population White Paper.

They included two MPs from the Lee Senior’s Tanjong Pagar group constituency, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen and former Transport Minister Raymond Lim.

It is not known if any – or all – of them had deliberately stayed away from the vote out of personal conviction.

Since their non-vote did not breach party discipline, no action was taken against anyone.

But the internal PAP unhappiness over plans to increase the population to over six million has become very clear.

Inderjit who strongly criticised his party’s population projection as “misjudgments” has called for the Whip to be lifted when Parliament discusses important policies.

More MPs from the ruling party might have joined in the debate, if this had happened, he added.

Writing in Singapolitics, commentator Daniel Yap said: “I like Inderjit. He’s got his heart in the right place, methinks, and unlike so many of his colleagues he isn’t afraid to say what he’s thinking.

“Inderjit is just experiencing the downside of the ‘change from within’ path he has chosen. He’s trapped in the intricacies of the system and I feel for him...”

Many Singaporeans expect him to be out of the party by the next general election because of his defiance, but another school of thought disagrees, saying he has done the party credit.

Not all who challenge the PAP’s policies get away lightly, political loosening or not.

In the latest example of what can happen to an outspoken journalism professor, Cherian George was denied tenure by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) a second time.

His case has baffled many Singaporeans. It has been a long time since punitive academic case has happened.

Dr Cherian, who joined NTU in 2004, had all the attributes of a successful elite in Singapore, a great academic record, good family connections and a befitting career.

More than 800 students have petitioned for extending his tenure, which the university said was denied “on the grounds of quality of teaching and research”.

One of his peers described him as one of the “foremost public intellectuals in Singapore”.

When the story broke, critics were baffled because he was considered close to the ruling leadership by relation.

His wife, Zuraidah Ibrahim is a deputy editor in the pro-government Straits Times, and his brother-in-law is Yaacob Ibrahim, Minis­­­­ter for Communications and Inform­ation and Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs.

Until the authorities are ready to clarify, the widespread suspicion is that the professor was punished for his political views.

The action also came as a surprise for another reason.

The Prime Minister has so far proven to be a different leader compared to his father, Lee Kuan Yew.

He is more tolerant and less threatening, although generally considered as less decisive.

But as seen in this case, he is not incapable of taking – or tolerating – harsh measures against a critic.

But it is also clear he is leading a country whose problems are of a vastly different kind.

The sort of image that he has inherited has resulted in the government being accepted as a top-down decider of most things that happen here – big or small.

During Lee Senior’s early years, known as the Golden Years of Economic Growth when things were going right, much of the credit had gone to the ruling party.

Now with many facets going wrong and a citizenry slowly losing trust in the leadership, the bulk of the blame is also going the same way

[stephenkhoo]

Another article about the impact of short term outlook and long term repercussions to the social fabric of society and the meaning of citizen....globalisation has brought down barriers to entry and also brought in social issues if not managed and controlled

[stephenkhoo]

Influx of foreign talents adds to woes of an increasing number of jobless professionals from the middle class.
A SALES and marketing manager loses his S$7,000 (RM17,145) job and turns to driving a taxi – a fallback profession for Singapore’s rising army of unemployed educated.

In another case, an engineer, married with children, who cannot find a job after being retrenched, spends some desperate months working as a S$4 (RM9.80)-an-hour librarian.

And thirdly, a Business graduate with First Class Honours who was replaced by a foreigner seven months ago has failed to land another job.

“Not a single job offer because of the intense competition from many ‘qualified’ foreign talents and an increasing number of jobless PMET Singaporeans,” he said.

PMET has become a familiar word in the republic in recent years, one that is increasingly associated with some of the woes of the new Singapore.

It stands for Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians that form the backbone of the affluent middle-class.

They also make up half the city’s work-force.

It is an institution that has been badly affected by the country’s immigration strategy of increasing the population and providing cheaper manpower for businesses.

Singaporeans are increasingly embittered about imported “cheaper paid” PMETs which have cut into employment and depressed wages for Singaporeans.

Thousands whose jobs have been taken over by outsiders have joined the ranks of cab drivers, private tutors, salespeople and part-time workers.

Like the three cases mentioned above, many victims are in their 40s and married with a family.

“If the government is right in saying that Singapore’s future can be secured through mass immigration, then we, the present generation, have to be the sacrificed,” said a retrenched engineer.

The PMET job market is in a general state of fluid as cheaper outsiders continue to move in.

It is marked by anxious job-holders who never know when their turn may come, while fresh start-ups – from those in university – are losing hope.

Ironically, it is the government’s emphasis on higher education that has significantly pushed up PMETs and Singapore’s middle class.

It has made for a better-educated, skilled population, raised more two-income families and raised household wealth in the Republic.

Over the horizon, however, some dark clouds are gathering for them.

Although the government has recently raised restrictions and reduced the foreigner intake as a result of public protests, the overall immigration policy is being firmly pursued.

According to statistics, middle-aged PMETs form the largest group of the new unemployed.

Six in 10 (59%) of Singaporean residents who were laid off in the third quarter of 2012 were aged 40.

Some 30% were in their 30s.

Degree holders formed the largest group by education, forming 28% of all unemployed.

Some of the hardest hit are post-graduates who found themselves over-qualified faced with a market that prefers cheap manpower.

The post-graduate son of an old friend had to apply for jobs with his normal degree because many bosses had refused to hire him for fear that he might be a transient professional.

Complainants include those with the highest education – the doctorate.

A Chinese mainlander with a PhD who could not find a meaningful job since coming here said he regretted taking up Singapore citizenship.

Another who had worked for A-Star bio-tech research is now driving a cab after being unable to find work since leaving the state-owned company.

Last week Singaporean Andrew Lee, who returned from Australia with a doctorate, wrote to a People’s Action Party (PAP) backbencher for help after failing to find work.

How badly are PMETs hit?

With half the work-force, they made up some 67% of the new unemployed, according to the latest official statistics.

Those with degrees form the largest group (41%) of people who were laid off.

Two years ago there was an inkling of things to come when a cabinet minister in charge of the labour movement, NTUC (National Trades Union Congress), talked of plans to go for cheap labour.

Lim Swee Say said his unions would help put on track a “Cheaper, Better, Faster” economy.

This sort of leadership philosophy has stagnated productivity and helped widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Nevertheless, Singapore remains largely a middle class society.

There is no universally accepted definition for one, but a middle class person is seen as one earning about S$4,000 (RM9,800) a month.

The latest impact on the middle class population now is the intake of foreign PMETs, which was traditionally the PAP’s strong support base.

It is much less true today. Many in this group are revolting against the ruling party. There is a spreading undercurrent of distrust.

Even without this, some economists fear the erosion of Japan’s middle class – first enunciated by Japanese strategist Kenichi Ohmae – may already be happening here.

Japan, he said, was emerging into a “M-shape” class distribution, in which a few middle class people moved into the upper class, while many others gradually sank to the lower classes.

These people suffered a deterioration in living standard, faced the threat of unemployment, or their average salary was dropping, he said.

Gradually, they can only live in a way the lower classes live: e.g. take buses instead of driving their own car, cut their budget for meals instead of dining at better restaurants, and spend less on consumer goods.

And, Kenichi said, all this can be taking place while the economy is enjoying remarkable growth and overall wages rise.

The broad masses cannot benefit from the growth and their living standard goes into decline.

Some of these trends already exist here. They could erode the middle class faster because of Singapore’s much smaller size.

[stephenkhoo]

By SEAH CHIANG NEE


By 2030, only about half of the population will be core Singaporeans. Most of the rest will be foreigners, who will not be required to enlist for national service.

WITH a bigger 6.9 million population, Singapore’s dilemma over a declining reservist army will be over by 2030, shouldn’t it?

Theoretically, the answer is yes. Surely you can’t have one of the world’s most over-crowded cities that impose military service for all 18-year-old boys running short of soldiers.

Well, this city can and probably will. In fact, the arrival of more new citizens or permanent residents will probably not throw up a larger “people’s army” but create a bigger headache to defence planners.

The reason? By 2030 only about half of the population will be core Singaporeans, most of the rest being foreigners will not be required to enlist.

National service, which began in 1967, requires young citizens to enlist for two years and thereafter serve in the reservist army – going back for a brief in-camp training every year. (Since then, it has trained more than 300,000 reservists, who will become front-line soldiers in the event of a war.)

For many years now, this concept was badly affected by a falling birthrate and a high number of Singaporeans emigrating overseas.

In fact, each consecutive batch of recruits has got smaller.

For example, the first batch 45 years ago numbered 55,000 conscripts, but nowadays, the annual figure is close to around 27,000 – only half what it used to be.

This would include a few children of PRs and new citizens. But it’s more than just a numbers problem.

Few small and medium-size firms (which employ 60% of all workers) would want their employees to report for 10-20 days of in-camp training annually.

To avoid this, some managers are hiring foreigners who have no such duty. Particularly guilty are foreign bosses who do not see any usefulness of military training to their profits.

Recently a government White Paper was passed in Parliament which approved the admission of more migrants to push for a 6.9 million population.

The trouble is that the vast majority of some 553,000 PRs are here to make money and will eventually leave. Unlike citizens, PRs do not have to enlist, but their children do.

Most parents, however, try various means to prevent their sons from becoming reservists.

The annual reservist recalled has for years placed Singaporean workers in a disadvantaged position when competing against women and foreigners, who are free from military service.

In response to local complaints, the Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen announced in March the setting up of a special committee to try to improve the lives and careers of NS-men and their families.

It will discuss how to better reward those who have fulfilled their NS liabilities and increase support from various groups like families, employers, schools, PRs and new citizens.

Why would a vastly expanded population not significantly enlarge the reservist army?

A reason is that by 2030, the anticipated 6.9 million population will have greatly diluted the Singaporean core to just about half.

The other half will be foreigners who have not undergone national service. With Singaporeans bearing an uneven brunt of the defence duty, the crucial question is: “Will the reservist army defend a Singapore in which half the population are from abroad?”

It is hard to imagine how the government in 2030 can convince core Singaporeans to risk their lives to protect the newcomers, who actually compete against them for jobs?

It will severely test the resolve of our NS-men or even the workability of the concept of a citizens’ defence force. So far, most Singaporeans have grudgingly accepted NS with some grumblings against foreigners here and there. The majority just soldier on.

Singaporeans have articulated for a review of NS training or a reduction of the service period but few have called for an end to it, realising its importance.

Last year, nearly 70% of Singaporeans polled by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) said that having a male child who had completed NS is an important characteristic of being ‘Singaporean’.

While he was in power, the founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, was conscious about factors that motivated NS-men to defend Singapore.

He concluded that owning a Housing Board flat was a crucial consideration. His rationale was that Singaporeans had to feel they were defending their own homes and families, not just fight to defend “Orchard Road (tourists) or Shenton Way (financial district)”.

Two months ago in an online discussion whether NS-men would defend a Singapore dominated by foreigners, a reservist soldier wrote a response online addressed “to rich foreigners living in Singapore”.

He said that outsiders were all impressed by what Singapore has to offer to wealthy foreigners.

These included safe streets, low crime and a safe environment to bring up a family and freedom to live a lavish lifestyle, he said.

“This security that you enjoy is not free and does not come easily.Singapore does not have a highly paid professional army.

“It is largely made up of part-time conscripts of ordinary Singaporean men. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Singaporean men like myself shed blood, sweat and tears. Some have even lost their lives just to provide this security.”

“Will Singaporean NS-men like myself lay my life on the line to protect foreigners here? I’m afraid that’s a BIG NO! Why should we? Sorry but you and your family are on your own!I will only fight to protect my fellow Singaporeans. No more no less,” he said.

There is no indication that his views reflect those of the general body of reservists, but it is nevertheless disturbing.

It makes the defence minister’s forthcoming committee deliberations very important.

[stephenkhoo]

Underground, the new frontier
by seah chiang nee

As surface land becomes scarce, Singapore is looking at burrowing

bur·row (bûr, br)
n.
1. A hole or tunnel dug in the ground by a small animal, such as a rabbit or mole, for habitation or refuge.
2. A narrow or snug place.
v. bur·rowed, bur·row·ing, bur·rows
v.intr.
1.
a. To dig a hole or tunnel for habitation or refuge.
b. To live or hide in such a place.
2. To move or progress by or as if by digging or tunneling
deep down to create more space for its people.

DURING some imaginative moments, it is not beyond resource-starved Singapore-ans to daydream about striking oil or gold in their backyard.

The question then is: Does it belong to the people or to the state? No sure answer there, but most would probably say, “The land-owner, of course, if it’s freehold land.”

Apparently the government isn’t too certain, either, as it plans to burrow deep into the earth’s bowels for more space to cater to a lot more people to work, study and play.

The Law Ministry said it will study subterranean ownership laws of other countries for possible adoption.

Currently, the land owner is deemed to own the underground space down to a certain depth that is reasonably necessary for the use and enjoyment of the property.

With a planned population of 6.9 million by 2030 for Singapore, already the second densest city in the world, the prospect of an underground city has become real and hence the need for such a law.

The government is eyeing developing an underground version of the 2008 master plan.

The Building Construction Autho-rity, which oversees a new agency responsible for surveying underground, said it could become a reality by 2050.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said the government is mulling over drafting an underground Master Plan soon for public consultation.

Singaporeans have reacted with excitement coupled with concern that they will somehow have to pay for it.

“Such developments do cost more, especially if the cheaper alternative of using surface land is available,” said Khaw.

An engineering friend commented wryly

wry ®
adj. wri·er (rr) or wry·er, wri·est (rst) or wry·est
1. Dryly humorous, often with a touch of irony.
2. Temporarily twisted in an expression of distaste or displeasure: made a wry face.
3. Abnormally twisted or bent to one side; crooked: a wry nose.
4. Being at variance with what is right, proper, or suitable; perverse.
: “Being normal over-ground is already making us one of the world’s most expensive cities. Imagine the costs for going underground!”

Others are worried about unsuitable soil and potential accidents as well as impact on floods that sometimes engulf large tracts of Singapore.

Yet, some Singaporeans view it as a creative, exciting way of enlarging space, a long-time preoccupation here since independence.

When I was a trainee correspondent with an international news agency in the 60s, one of my early assignments was to report on a new law to clear cemeteries. It cleared the island of all non-Muslim cemeteries.

I wrote then, “On this land-squeezed Singapore, even the dead have to make way for the living.”

This was followed by a plan to build the new city skywards. Towering residential blocks soon began to dot the landscape; people began living stacked on top of one another.

At the same time, the government began pushing back the sea via reclamation, which eventually increased the land size by one fifth. After decades at it, Singapore is bigger by a whole Hong Kong island.

The government-supported The Straits Times described underground living as the “next frontier”.

Singaporeans may one day “live, work and play below ground in vast, subterranean caverns that make today’s underground malls look like home basements”, it said.

The proposed expansion of population by a third has stirred much public unhappiness, compelling the government into action to tackle the dilemma of overcrowdedness.

The ability to create space has become top priority. Pushing underground is not new. For years now the city has been storing some of its military munitions in this way.

Work is also ahead for similar storage facilities for crude oil and oil products.

Next could be power stations, warehouses, incineration plants, airport logistics centres and even reservoirs all below ground.

The two biggest universities are also moving big with the trend.

A reporter wrote: “Students may one day borrow books from an underground library, attend lectures in a subterranean auditorium or even swim in an Olympic-size swimming pool below sea level.”

Another is the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT). The relatively new Central Circle Line has 29 stations and run some 33km underneath central Singapore.

One of the stations, Dhoby Ghaut, stands out as an underground engineering feat.

The five-level subterranean station links three MRT lines and a shopping complex and the Istana Park and will cater for 20,000 people an hour at its peak.

Singapore is also building below-ground ring roads, more shopping complexes and a massive underground sewage system.

Creating a city underground is, of course, slow and very costly, but less intrusive; something that goes on almost without interruption through the years.

Two other major underground projects are still ongoing. They are:

> A S$4.8bil (RM12bil) network of ring road below the central business district, a concept taken from Paris that will take 10 years to build, and

> A S$9bil (RM23bil) subterranean sewage system that comprises two highway-size tunnels criss-crossing the island 12 storeys below ground. It could take 20 years to complete.

So far there has been no mention about people living underground, an idea that some Singaporeans could find unacceptable.

But Singaporeans in the next generation would have to get used to the idea of working, studying or shopping below sea levels.


>The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

[stephenkhoo]

It is possible to go down and deep below because SG sits on a large granite rock that is reason we could pile and do land reclamation or storage and ammo facilities underground.

The question is how to ensure fresh air and fresh water is piped in safely if you continue to build downwards.

[stephenkhoo]

The latest from Seah Chiang Nee with a perspective from the other side of the coin. He would do very well bouncing off comments and feedback to the SG govt feedback unit. These rumblings off the blocks will always happen be it due to failed policy or general grudges. The only possibility for moving forward in a quicker, literate, smarter electorate is to allow more ownership of individual aspirations and actions. Such is the only way when people understands what maturity is at individual level. Travel around the region and you know our govt has done minimally well enough for basics minus the few issues we know, rumblings and grudges will not solve anything but add on more noise. It is time for the govt to let pple take control and ownership of their lives and give feedbackrather than adding noise. This can be done extensively using the media.

Migrant labour pains for Singapore

DESPITE improved government efforts, Singapore and its people are still paying a heavy price for having too many migrant workers.

Even as it sped up the building of more flats and shortened applicant queues, two other problems related to overcrowding have popped up.

They had been around for some time but resurfaced with a bang in the first few days of 2014.

The first was reports that government hospitals had to place beds along the corridors and in a large tent to house excess patients.

Some sick outpatients also had to wait for months for a consultation date with specialists.

The 800-bed Changi General Hospital, for example, had to put patients in a big air-conditioned tent. The larger Tan Tock Seng Hospital (1,200 beds) had to set up beds along corridors next to overfilled wards.

There were just too many patients. It is not known how long this emergency situation will last.

Other public hospitals with similar shortages were reported to have rented facilities from private or community hospitals.

“Every day, we have to make decisions regarding our 500 patients. Those who are not so sick are discharged to make way for the 50 to 60 patients waiting for a bed,” a manager was quoted as saying.

At Changi Hospital, a patient was quoted as saying: “There was no shower room and I couldn’t bathe for two days.”

A letter writer commented: “The corridor scenes packed with beds look like a war zone.”

These reports surprised many people, who were repeatedly told by leaders that Singapore was a top First World country.

They also learned that Mass Rapid Transit trains had broken down on several occasions. Free bus rides had to be provided to irate passengers.

One commentator said: “So far, the root cause has not been addressed – overloading. The system built for three million now handles 5.4 million.”

These mishaps heralded a bigger problem on the opening day of Singapore’s biggest, most expensive highway.

It links roads from the Central Business District to the East Coast, a crucial, busy artery that is heavily used by motorists.

As soon as it began operations on a Monday morning, the Marina Bay Expressway – the city’s widest, most expensive (S$4.5bil or RM11.6bil) highway – became a traffic trap.

Many cars were stuck for hours.

A taxi passenger who wanted a smoother ride was caught in the nightmare for over two hours. “My fare came to S$74.60 (RM193.20).”

The traffic improved on subsequent days. It was still heavy but without the gridlock, mainly because some of the motorists used alternate routes.

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew said: “Things will be clearer in two to three weeks.”

The population has grown by about 25% or 1.2 million people in the last 10 years. In addition, some 15 million tourists arrive every year.

The huge foreign influx was not matched by the building of more public services, especially in housing, transport and healthcare.

The resultant public anger led to an unprecedented apology in 2011 from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong with a promise to do better.

The expressway fiasco, however, unfairly masks the government’s earlier achievements in developing the city’s infrastructure like airports, harbours and reservoirs.

These also include highways and roads the authorities had considered important for economic growth.

But the subsequent mass arrival of immigrants has created new shortages and overcrowding in almost every public service.

Forbes magazine last week described Singapore as having, among other problems, “a population bubble”.

Some 36% of people here are foreig­n workers who came mostly for the money. If the jobs were to disappear, the vast majority would leave.

In perspective, the government began reducing the flow in recent years. Although more are still coming, the numbers are fewer.

It has reportedly created a manpower shortage, raising complaints from small and medium-sized companies. Hardly a day passes without an employer lamenting lost sales because of the shortage.

A government White Paper calling for a 6.9-million population by 2030 is believed to be on the table for implementation.

Proponents for importing more foreigners mainly base their arguments on economic and demogra­phic grounds, with very little focus on the social impact.

In fact, their large presence – ranging from skilled professionals to construction workers – is raising increasing concerns about potential friction.

After experiencing its first mass riot in four decades, some critics have warned that this overhanging threat could worsen.

By 2030, nearly half the population will be foreigners.

On Jan 13, Forbes ran a controversial article titled “Why Singapore’s economy is heading for an Iceland-style meltdown” (Iceland failed spectacularly in 2008).

It gave a highly pessimistic forecast of the economy, red-hot proper­ty market, high household debts and the “migrant workers bubble”.

The writer Jesse Colombo said that each of these factors has built up its own bubble. As interest rates move up, he warned, these bubbles could burst in a few years, dragging down the economy.

The Monetary Authority of Singa­pore quickly refuted that the country is facing a credit bubble.

Most professionals I talked to said the report was too pessimistic and a crisis is unlikely.

I will not go into details, but the writer added that if bubbles in financial services and construction (proper­ty) pop, so will the “migrant workers bubble”.

If that really takes place, managing an orderly outflow will be a tough act.


> Seah Chiang Nee is an international journalist of 40 years, many of them reporting on Asia. The views expressed are entirely his own.