TR EMERITUS

Manpower minister Dr Tan See Leng reminded NCMP Mr Leong Mun Wai that both their fathers came from another country, that Singapore is an immigrant society, that he should stop rehashing the “foreigners are stealing our lunch” debate. In short, Dr Tan is implying that if foreigners did not sink roots here, becoming PRs and citizens, where would Singapore be? Dr Tan has a point, except he forgot that when his father came to Singapore, it was not a country; it was a British colony where people far and wide came to make a living, and indeed, many went back to their country after accumulating some money. It was only in 1965 that Singapore became a fully independent country, and with it, the process of building a nation began, and citizens had to make big sacrifices and commitments - all male Singaporeans had to serve National Service; many people had to sell their land to the State for a pittance so that redevelopment could proceed smoothly; they agreed to abide by very strict laws so that harmony and prosperity could thrive; they gave up their way of life to embrace a national identity; just to name a few. Singapore the country, did not survive and prosper by happenstance, it did so by the hard work and sacrifice of its people. By bringing in more foreigners, Dr Tan is stabbing all Singaporeans who live on a wage in the back, because it effectively reduces their market rate but increases the capitalist’s profit. And in so doing, he is making a mockery of the sacrifices they are making as citizens. Dr Tan ought to be clear in his mind, whether his government is building a nation, or a marketplace to secure the highest profit for the capitalist. He should also ponder, if his government is truly building a nation, would the Total Fertility Rate be so low that the nation cannot replace itself but has to import foreigners?   Foong Swee Fong    Read More →

Singapore’s continuous push to increase its population raises serious concerns about sustainability. As an island nation with finite land and resources, there is an inherent limit to how many people it can effectively accommodate. Yet, policymakers persist in pursuing aggressive population growth, often citing economic needs and demographic challenges as justification. However, this strategy comes with significant downsides that cannot be ignored. One of the most immediate and visible effects of an expanding population is overcrowding. Public transport, healthcare facilities, and recreational spaces are becoming increasingly congested, leading to a diminished quality of life for residents. The high population density also exacerbates infrastructure strain, resulting in longer commuting times and reduced living space per capita. The housing market is another area of concern. While asset appreciation benefits property owners and investors, the reality is that rising property prices have made homeownership increasingly unaffordable for the average Singaporean. The pursuit of higher population figures has become a double-edged sword—while some gain from soaring real estate values, many others struggle with escalating rent and mortgage costs, pushing them further into financial insecurity. Beyond housing, the rising cost of living is an unavoidable consequence of population expansion. Basic necessities such as food, transportation, and healthcare have all seen price hikes, making it harder for middle- and lower-income groups to maintain a reasonable standard of living. The economic benefits of a growing population appear to be unevenly distributed, with the burden of inflation falling on ordinary citizens while a select few reap the rewards of asset appreciation. A crucial yet often overlooked issue is food security. Singapore imports more than 90% of its food, leaving it vulnerable to global supply chain disruptions. A growing population further intensifies the demand for food, which could drive prices even higher and make the country more susceptible to external shocks. While efforts have been made to enhance local food production, the limited land available makes complete self-sufficiency impossible. Ultimately, the relentless pursuit of population growth is an unsustainable strategy for Singapore. The nation must carefully weigh the short-term economic gains against the long-term social and environmental costs. A more balanced approach that prioritizes quality of life, resource sustainability, and economic equity would be a far wiser path forward. The question remains—how much more can Singapore realistically take before the cracks in this approach become too deep to repair?   CWC-AI    Read More →

I refer to the CNA’s commentaries, “How the end of Ukraine war could be secured, even with waning US support” (Mar 4), “Lessons from the Trump-Zelenskyy meltdown- for friends and foes” (Mar 1) and “Will Trump tariffs push China to change economic tack?” (Mar 3). Foremost, we need to recognise the reality and cruelty of international politics. Because since the two world wars, there has been the existence and continuation of power politics as well as the law of the jungle. On Feb 28, the humiliation of Zelenskyy in the White House, Washington has clearly demonstrated this point - Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty and humiliation. Trump's intense pressure on Ukraine to sign a mining deal has indirectly forced Zelenskyy to abandon his insistence on a national security guarantees. At the same time, the United States also threatened to cut off military aid and Starlink to Ukraine, which would make the Ukrainian military's drones inoperable and hastened the rout of the Ukrainian army. As we all know, since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war (February 24, 2022), the US military aid to Ukraine (which must be repaid) has reached about 61% of the total military expenditure. Simultaneously, since Trump came to power, he has been trying to win over and repair the past hostile U.S.-Russia relations. For example, The New York Times website reported on March 2 that the US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth ordered the US military command to suspend cyber attacks on Russia. Trump also intends to unilaterally lift economic sanctions against Russia in the hope that Putin will agree to end the Russia-Ukraine war that has lasted for more than 3 years as soon as possible, so as to accomplish his presidential promise. As for Russia's ultimate demand for ending the Russia-Ukraine war, military observers and analysts from all sides generally believe that Putin is also striving for maximized national interests and demands: Russia wants Ukraine to get rid of fascism and militarization, and demands that Ukraine will never join NATO and that Russia permanently occupies those lands gained in the Russia-Ukraine war. That is why Russia is now fiercely attacking Odesa (Ukraine’s important distribution center for various materials and important trade port, known as the "Pearl of the Black Sea") to maximise its occupied land. However, It seems too early to say whether China’s 12-point position on a political solution to the Ukrainian crisis, which was released on February 24, 2023, will eventually be accepted by the victorious country, Russia. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether China will become Ukraine’s final savior. As regards to Trump’s imposition of various tariffs on China, it will not push China to change its economic tack. In fact, China had already prepared for a trade and tariff war with the United States during Trump’s first term. Therefore, over the past eight years, China has continued to explore business opportunities and develop markets in the Middle East, Russia, European and southern countries. This is because the economic policies of the past few administrations of the United States have favored unilateralism and protectionism. Hence, Beijing is unlikely to change its underlying economic strategy even with a trade war brewing. China will strive to expand the domestic demand market, open up to foreign investment and trade, encourage overseas investment, and never engage in trade protectionism. Indeed, in 2024, China’s exports to US only accounts 15% of its total exports volume, and accounts over 500 billion US dollars. And, vice versa, China’s imports from the United States only accounts for 6 to 7% of its total imports volume. In due course, When Trump imposes 20% tariffs upon China’s imports, it will not generate adverse effects and repercussions on China. And, in reverse, China will also counter act the trade tariffs upon US’ imported goods. So, eventually the imposition of high tariffs will have greater and negative impact/consequences on the vast numbers of American consumers as they will not be able to find another substitute of imported product with a cheaper price and reasonably good quality. (as China has the largest, complete industrial chain and logistics chain in the world) For examples, the consumable and industrial products of China which are very popular in the world with excellent quality and prices : electric cars, solar panels, zero-electric and zero-magnetic material focuser. Teo Kueh Liang (Mr)    Read More →