TR EMERITUS

A demographic microscope paints a very bad picture of Singapore’s national makeup and suggests why we are losing all our cultural identity. While there is currently a debate on how many jobs are going to PR’s vs Citizens, the wisdom of the CECA agreement and the perceived flood of Indian Nationals into the workforce and Singapore as a whole, which are definitely topics of concern, what should concern us all, even more, is that so many Singaporeans are giving up on the country, packing their bags and permanently leaving while those replacing them are changing our social fabric. According to the department of statistics between 2012 and 2018, the Malay population has been largely stable with the population growing naturally by 29,243 boosted by 1,362 more than the birth-death number through nett immigration. Our Indian Population, however, has seen a slight loss. Although the population grew by 17,552 the difference between births and deaths was 21,211, so nett 3,659 of them left, an almost 1.4% leaving rate. A shock to me was that although our “Others” population rose by 7,779 in the period the nett difference between births and deaths for the same time for that racial group was 31,000. That means that 23,221 must have left the country for good, probably a lot more as I know some who have recently become citizens here. That is nearly 31% of what the population would have been had they stayed… nearly one third! However, what I feel will be the biggest shock to everyone else according to my calculations is the makeup of our Chinese population. This demographic grew by 160,134 however only 67,811 of that was from natural growth as shown by the birth-death numbers so the rest of the growth in our Chinese population, almost 58%, must be due to nett immigration. However, that is not the whole story because when we look at the population change after also accounting for New Citizenships granted (as per the CNA report of sept last year), we see that nett 82,351 Singaporeans must have given up their citizenships and permanently emigrated in the last 7 years for the numbers to add up. Once we adjust for the Indian and Others leaving and a small number of Malays arriving, we can calculate that some 69% or 56,833 of those who left were Chinese. With only 67,811 more being born than dying and 56,833 leaving that means in actuality 149,156 of the local Chinese population increases, or almost 92%, must have been through nett immigration. So, with one-third of the Others leaving, 1.4 % of our Indian population going too and our resident Chinese population being rapidly transformed to foreign-born is it any wonder we are losing our sense of identity or belonging? The bigger question though is why? Our Malay population seems to be pretty sanguine about things, but everyone else appears to see little future in their country of birth, especially the Chinese and “others” who are leaving at alarming rates. What does this say about how our country is being governed when so many of its citizens wish to or are leaving and what will we become if the trend does not change? Having the lowest birth rate in the world is bad enough but when those few born here also want to leave you have a terminal problem… at least if you are a country and care about national identity, society, its welfare and a future for all. If you care about those things and your people (which by the way you were elected to do) wouldn’t you focus on raising your Total Fertility Rate so more were born here, be family-friendly and create a policy environment and way of life that made citizens feel like they had a future in the country and wanted to stay? Of course, if you are more like a company who doesn’t care where your workforce comes from maybe it doesn’t matter so much to you? In fact, it may even be preferred as a foreign labour force can be cherry-picked, expanded and contracted at will and does not give the headaches of having to be accommodated as citizens would… Of course, surprise surprise nearly 40% of our workforce is already foreign. Now some immigration is inevitable, and to be honest healthy, but in my opinion on this scale, it is at best a reckless stopgap to paper over bad policies that have led to this demographic timebomb and at worst a terrible choice that will turn our country into nothing more than a flag of convenience and a place to make money during your working years for those few who make use of it. Certainly, it won’t be a true a home or country for any but the top few % who will own and run it all, as I have said before a Dubai of Asia. The trouble is at the rate the population is being re-engineered we may soon run out of the numbers and time to make any changes to this terrible path we are on... This really worries me…what about you? (Note: All the figures are my own calculations drawn from various Sing Stats reports on population, births, deaths and workforce so please let me know if you have any different numbers or get different results if you look at them).   Brad Bowyer      Read More →

Minister Chan Chun Sing revealed that 17% of new jobs went to PRs, whilst they make up a total of 15% of the Singaporean workforce.  In my opinion, this is engaging in typical selective disclosure as several questions immediately come to mind: 1) Why did he report only on total jobs created between 2015 and 2018? And why only on "jobs created"? This misses instances where a Singaporean was fired and then replaced by a foreigner or PR? 2) Why breakdown the statistics only by Singaporeans and PRs? What about foreigners and new citizens (where around 25,000 given out each year)? 3) Since the floodgates were opened in early 2000s, shouldn't he disclose number of Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners taking new jobs and replacement jobs each year between 2000 and 2018? 4) I suspect many jobs created between 2015 and 2018 were PHV drivers and food deliverers. Can we also have a breakdown of the new jobs by full-time, part-time and temporary and by salary buckets as some of the "new jobs" created could be held by Singaporeans and are poor quality jobs with no prospects. PAP cannot continue to hide bad statistics/data. They cant expect to convince us by selective disclosure. This is why we sorely need a Freedom of Information Act but PAP will never allow it because they don't want the people to know the truth!   Henryace Ace      Read More →

The most shocking part of the Manpower Minister Josephine Teo's POFMA action against the SDP involves this statement in the MOM's affidavit: "Counsel will elaborate further on the legal position: what has been set out is, in the Minister's view, the correct, reasonable interpretation, and there is no other reasonable interpretation of the Relevant Sentence. The Minister has been further advised however, that the legal position is that, as long as what has been set out is one reasonable interpretation (amongst several possible interpretations) such that it could be said that some people (at the very least) would have adopted that reasonable interpretation, then the CD can be issued if that reasonable interpretation is false." "I did a double take when I first read it, I thought it was a prank," Dr Chee said in court this afternoon. "This position defies comprehension." How does one justify the use of the Minister's opinion and interpretations to charge the SDP with making a "false statement of fact". Dr Chee had to take the court through the meaning of the word "fact". Facts have actual existence. They can be objectively verified and are not in dispute. They are not open to interpretation or opinion. He said, "I'm sure you've heard of the adage 'you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.'” So, when Ms Josephine Teo says that the SDP has made a false statement of fact, what she is saying is that the SDP's statement is indisputably, demonstrably wrong. That false statement is not open to interpretation. He gave the example of the SDP making the statement that the earth is flat. The MOM can say that this is a false statement of fact because it can be demonstrated that the earth is globular, not flat, and there won't be any dispute. But what the MOM won't say is that "in the Minister's view" the earth is round. That's a ludicrous statement to make, Dr Chee said. The fact that MOM has to qualify that it is the Minister's view, that hers is a correct, reasonable "interpretation" and so on, shows how ridiculous the MOM's case is. "Has it come to a point that a Minister's opinion and interpretation of a statement can dictate what is fact and what is not?" Dr Chee asked. The AGC also said that there may be "several possible interpretations" of a statement that "some people would have adopted". How many is some? 3, 10, 100? Falsehoods don't rely on opinions or interpretations of "some" people. They are indisputably wrong and untrue. In the present case, the entire day was spent disputing statistical data by both sides. This cannot, by any stretch of the imagine, qualify as a falsehood, much less a deliberate one necessitating the application of POFMA. "Your Honour," Dr Chee summed up, "this is a court of law, and a court of law is where reason thrives. For surely, when reason sleeps, absurdities arise. Reason is based on evidence and evidence on facts, not opinions and interpretations – especially the interpretations of a partisan-political player." This is the clearest example yet of how the POFMA is being abused. Earlier, the SDP applied to convert the Originating Summons into a Writ so that there can be discovery of documents and MOM officials, including Minister Teo, can be called to the witness stand and be cross-examined. Justice Ang Cheng Hock, however, disallowed the application. The SDP argued that it is concerned about of job security of Singaporeans and unfair competition of jobs from foreign PMETs. The hearing continues tomorrow.   Singapore Democrats      Read More →