Citizen-to-population ratio important for survival

June 23, 2009

I REFER to The Straits Times online article, "Spore's population is 4.84m", on Wednesday.

Judging from the statistics, citizens and permanent residents (PRs) account for 75.3 per cent of the population while citizens account for 65.4 per cent of the population. In other words, for every three residents, there is one foreigner, and for every two citizens, there is one PR/foreigner.

The influx of foreigners has increased significantly since 2005, while the citizen to population ratio has steadily declined. These trends are alarming to me, but first, I would like to say that this letter is not about foreigner bashing.

It is about pursuing sane, sound policies so our society will not become fragile in the face of crisis, and it raises the question: How many foreigners is too much?

I suspect that at the rate we are courting foreigners, our citizens to total population ratio will reach 50:50 very soon, and I am of the view that the current trend must be stopped. There must be a minimum level of citizens to the total population. The question is: How small is too small?

Our strategic vulnerabilities have been well touted. Even in current relative stability, if there is a determined influential force in the region, the situation can turn drastic within six months to a year. In such a situation, we can expect that the PRs and foreigners would return to their home countries, and only the citizens would stay.

If one-third of the population leaves in times of crisis, the remaining two-thirds have to shoulder the burden.

In times of war, if you do not count the national servicemen and those in the civil defence or police force, in essence, we will be left with very little of the population to keep the essential services going.

If the population decreases further, say by 50 per cent, perhaps due to starvation, lack of medical services, a pandemic or poor sanitation, we become very vulnerable. A serious study to determine how many foreigners is too much is in order.

I agree with the reasons to welcome foreigners, but we must do this while maintaining a minimum citizen to population ratio. If, in order to maintain such a ratio, we must compromise economic growth, so be it. It would be better to have a robust infrastructure, than one that cannot be rebuilt - or would take decades to rebuild - after a crisis.

Teo Chun Sang

[MM Lee has said the same, so you can be sure the Govt is aware of the problem. The last thing the Govt wants is the AWARE saga played out on the National and sociological stage.]

Low taxi ridership: Take a look at the surcharges

June 23, 2009

THE Land Transport Authority's letter on Saturday, "3 aims of $1m fund", on its rationale for setting up the fund to promote taxi ridership, reflects its lack of appreciation for the reasons some commuters cut down on their use of taxis.

The recent drop in taxi ridership is perhaps a sign that the various surcharges have resulted in overall taxi fares rising to a level beyond what many commuters are prepared to pay. The situation is not helped by the practice of some errant taxi drivers who park their empty cabs and wait for phone bookings.

Without addressing these concerns among commuters, LTA's intention to fund more campaigns and install more taxi stands at major events will not encourage more commuters to take taxis more often.

Instead of ploughing public funds into promoting taxi ridership, LTA should encourage taxi companies to react to market forces and reduce the various surcharges, and start clamping down on bad practices which distort the supply of available taxis on the road.

LTA should also consult consumer bodies such as the Consumers Association of Singapore to get a sense of consumer sentiment and ensure that its future policies continue to be relevant and representative of the needs of all stakeholders in the market.

Liew Chin Wen

[Incoherent letter. On the one hand, he acknowledges that there are some taxi drivers who will wait for phone bookings. On the other hand, he claims that surcharges are too high. Phone bookings come with booking charge. Taxi drivers like that. People obviously are willing to pay for that otherwise the drivers will wait in vain.

And obviously the writer has not read the LTA's explanation carefully. The infrastructure is aimed at supporting major events, so it is irrelevant to general taxi ridership. As for the campaigns, these would be Taxi companies' initiative and LTA will fund up to 1/3 of the costs - presumably on approval. The other part is to improve service and training.

It is not clear from LTA's letter if the fund is actually called "fund to raise taxi ridership", but based on its objectives, it should be called, "fund to improve Taxi Service".

As for low ridership, I don't think there is low ridership. Taxi drivers may have fewer passengers than before the last fare increase, but their income has not suffered according to some survey. This is good for the taxi driver.

Another "let me use the issue of the day to push for my own agenda, which is basically getting things cheaper or better still, free" letter. ]

Lift three-quarter tank rule to send positive signal to KL

June 19, 2009

I AM encouraged to see the recent renewal of strong ties between Singapore and Malaysia. With Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's visit to Singapore, and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's reciprocal visit to many parts of Malaysia, I sense a genuine desire to establish new levels of diplomatic relations and economic ties.

I strongly support MM Lee's call for cooperation between the two governments to be wide-ranging, consistent and stable. Such a level of solidarity cannot be achieved overnight, and may even take years. Both governments should try to take the initiative, and not wait for the other side to start. They could work on things that are relatively easy to implement, which will yield results of mutual benefit.

As a sign of our sincerity in achieving stronger ties, I urge Singapore to take the lead. In line with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call to shun protectionism and embrace free trade (especially among Asean member countries), I wonder if we could lift the three-quarter petrol tank rule now.

I believe the timing is right for this decision. It would send a positive signal to the Malaysian government. I also believe many Singaporeans would welcome this decision.

Danny Lee

[Many online comments savaged this letter-writer. Glad to see Singaporeans can be critical and intelligent. Some of the comments included, lifting the rule would mean more Singaporeans taking advantaged of subsidised fuel in M'sia - which would irk the M'sians more. Enterprising Singaporeans will fit additional or larger fuel tanks in the car. Or even bring jerry cans to top up. The cynical noted that the Govt would not allow a drain on their coffers (petrol tax).

In any case, the whole point of the 3/4 tank rule was mainly to support the tax policy to disincentivise car usage. It therefore does not make sense to remove the rule now, when the policy to discourage car use is still in place.

A side effect of lifting the rule, would be that jams to JB will increase even more.

And in any case, the whole cooperative mood has been dashed by the Johor Sultan rejecting a third link and the UMNO Youth chief rejecting any possibility of selling sand to Singapore.]

Make Causeway crossing akin to Changi Airport experience

June 3, 2009

I HAD an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience driving from Singapore to Johor Baru, via the Woodlands Checkpoint, last Saturday.

I just could not believe that this could happen in Singapore, after experiencing so many pleasant and smooth journeys through the beautifully organised and well-managed terminals at Changi Airport.

I left my home in Upper Changi and arrived close to the Woodlands Checkpoint in 30 minutes - a smooth and beautiful drive.

Then the shock.

A traffic snarl formed about 1.6km from the checkpoint. There were about four to five lanes converging into two as we neared the checkpoint.

There were no road signs giving advance warning about converging lanes, resulting in the criss-crossing of vehicles dangerously fighting for space and squeezing into lanes.

As darkness approached, the lighting was inadequate and road signs became difficult to read.

Upon approaching the line of immigration booths, I could not believe the concrete jungle of a checkpoint, with insufficient greenery and no decorative features, so very different from the scene at Changi Airport's terminals.

Immigration staff were also very different in personality and attitude from those at the airport terminals.

When it came time to pay the car exit fees, I had to remove the CashCard from the in-vehicle unit and insert it into a slot in order for the barrier to be lifted.

It took 90 minutes to cross the Singapore checkpoint and get on the Causeway, and another hour thereafter to arrive at and clear the immigration and customs counters at JB. The return journey was a little less unpleasant, but it also took 90 minutes in all. We spent six hours on the road that evening to attend a two-hour wedding function in JB.

I am confident that creative short-term solutions can be worked out on the Singapore side to enhance public safety and convenience, shorten waiting times and make visitor travel so much more comfortable and pleasant.

For the medium to longer term, a possible integration of systems and processes may be explored for the mutual benefit of all travellers and staff on both sides of the Causeway. Let us try to make this border crossing an experience similar to that at Changi.

Amarjit S. Wasan

[The land crossing is a different class of experience and I hope that the wishes in this letter may come to pass. But I think there are severe constraints on these wishes. Most of the smuggling are via the land crossing, and so is the drug trafficking. At the same time there isn't a lot of revenue from the causeway operations as compared to the Airport (with airport tax etc). So this is a problem of money.]

Don't let traditions and festivals vanish

June 3, 2009

I AM in my late teens and am upset that many youth these days take various customs and festivals lightly.

Festivals under the lunar calendar, such as the Hungry Ghost Festival and Mid-Autumn Festival, go unnoticed by youth. Some do not even know their history.

In the past, people would pray to the deceased throughout the month during the Hungry Ghost Festival. There would also be getai performances.

But times have changed and youth do not bother to carry on the tradition. They also do not support getai performances.

During the Mid-Autumn and Dragon Boat Festivals, they know only that it is time to eat mooncakes and dumplings. A few days before the Dragon Boat Festival, I overheard a group of secondary school students saying: "There's no need to celebrate such things. We are not in China. Just eat dumplings."

With such a mindset, I fear that Singapore's youth will not only lose their traditional beliefs, but also forget the history and significance of such festivals.

My suggestion is to have exhibitions at various locations in Singapore where youth hang out.

The Education Ministry should promote such traditions in schools. If not, in a decade's time, such activities and traditions will be wiped out from the lives of Singaporeans.

Tan Shao Ken

[I just wanted to comment that Singapore and "nan yang" Chinese probably have a better grasp of traditions and customs, especially those with religious or semi-religious overtones. The Communist cultural revolution and a disdain for religion under the communist regime meant that many of these traditions were suppressed.

As with all traditions, the importance and the meaning will evolve with the times.]

Teach sex education in context of meaningful relationships

May 23, 2009

I READ with interest the reports on how sex education is needed to counter worrying trends and the approaches to be taken.

There is one important factor missing in all the discussions and that is the context in which sex happens - in a relationship.

Sex education is not just about teaching how sex takes place or when sexuality is aroused. Nor is it about accepting the barrage of emotions involved in exploring alternative lifestyles. These make up only one component of sex education.

The reason there's such a mess is because the programme should be entitled "Relationships", with sex, sexuality and so on as sub-topics. If sex education is taught in isolation, our children will never see the importance of abstinence or why precautions are to be taken when engaging in sex.

Relationships should be the anchor to sex and sex education should be taught in the context of a relationship and all its intricacies, such as self-esteem, values and beliefs.

First, a complete and wholesome view of what a balanced relationship should be must be shared so that children from various backgrounds understand the goal and aim of having a relationship. The choices of abstinence and the consequences of indulging in premarital sex should be shared and revealed.

Share what happens when abstinence is not practised and when relationships are not honoured. Provide our children with a reference point for a good and wise choice.

Whatever the choice is, it is ultimately their choice and they should enter these scenarios with their eyes wide open.

Don't advocate options like wearing a condom as a choice for premarital sex. Instead, educate them on what is premarital sex in the context of a relationship so that our children know why it is not encouraged.

If they do eventually engage in it, it is their personal choice but one where they are made fully aware of the consequences. They need to be ready to deal with the situation after that.

So, it's really not sex education that needs to be taught. It's the importance of being in a responsible adult relationship that needs to be shared.

We, as a society, need to be brave to stand up for what's right, to communicate clearly what's right and allow our children to make the choices themselves and subsequently handle the various consequences of their choices.

Karen Chew (Mrs)

[The problem with this letter and letter writer is the simple naivete and conservative "stick our head in the sand" approach. There are some assumptions that needs to be addressed.

Consider the alleged youngest father in UK, the 13 yr-old boy with the 15 yr old "girlfriend" who claimed that the boy was the father of her child. The boy seems to think that he is in a relationship.

The point is that up to the age of 19 and sometimes beyond, people often think they are in a relationship and often believe that the relationship they are in is the best and the most sincere.  And sex is often a consideration in the relationship, and so telling them that sex MUST happen in the context of a relationship merely transfers some weight to the relationship. Most teens engaging in sex believe that they are in a relationship. Some of course realise later or even understand beforehand that sex and relationship are not inseparable.

And herein lies the problem. If you tell kids what they know is not true, you lose credibility and then even when what you tell them is true, they won't believe you.

The "Sex must happen in a relationship" position is a value-laden statement that is not factually true. It is a teaching of values, yes, our conservative and prescribed value that we hope all our children will follow. But the reality is that not all of them will. Lots of people have sex outside of marriage and even outside of relationships and they give testimony that it is not only fine, it was great!

And here we go trying to hold the conservative line and it is not going to work. The kids will know you are feeding them a line.

They are curious and their hormonal changes drive them to immature and irresponsible acts. Telling them to be responsible and act matured is like trying to command the waves to stop crashing on the beach.

This is reverting to the old syllabus. It didn't work then. Why would it work now? And the vulnerable/stupid kids will continue to do stupid things advised by their stupid friends who tell them the wrong things that will get them into trouble.

Wouldn't it be better to give them the facts, tell them to talk to their parents, tell them what is fact and what is value, and tell them to respond to the situation in the most responsible way.

Or do conservatives believe that STD is God's punishment for premarital sex and condom use is thwarting God's natural punishment mechanism? Maybe we should teach that.]

Comment on the Sex Education in Schools

 Comment by: clearingsmoke
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
8% sexually active, why must teach wholesale to the whole cohort? Those at risk of experimenting can opt in, why expect the majority to opt out?

Even Minister Ng thinks this is still an AWARE and some christians catfight, we are doomed! Can someone please acknowledge the rest of Singapore exists?
-----------
Of course clearingsmoke thinks that the 8% does not include his/her children. So apparently 8% of parents will spontaneously decide that their children are probably the ones at risk and decide to opt for their children to attend sex education.

That is soooo going to happen.

But clearingsmoke is one of those people who will never acknowledge that there is a responsibility and it is not being discharged responsibly.

Sex education is the responsibility of parents. If not them, then who?

If parents properly educate their children on sexuality and sexual mores, they need not worry about what wrong things their children are hearing from other children or even other adults.

But because parents don't schools have stepped in. because the alternative is children teaching children about sex. Or worse, sexual predators teaching your children about sex.