Dr Wong Wee Nam: Why Do We Need 6.5 Million People?

February 27, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Current Affairs, Dr Wong Wee Nam 

Why Do We Need 6.5 Million People?

The Over-Population Problem

On 21st February 2008, a friend sent me an ST online forum letter written by Mr. Yong Koi Kwong on why Singapore should not become a 6.5 million city state.

The writer said: “Singapore is situated in a hot humid equatorial region. The average relative humidity is 80 per cent with a daily average temperature of 24 to 32 degrees Celcius for virtually the whole year. The average number of hours of sunshine is 5.5 to 6 hours. It is very unpleasant to live in such an environment if there is no natural ventilation to take away one’s perspiration.

Our country is unique in that we are a sovereign city state with no countryside. Only half the land could be built up (including about 12 per cent for roads). The rest of the country is occupied by military training grounds, central catchment area, 17 reservoirs and golf courses and five airports or airfields and two naval bases.

In spite of our relentless land reclamation for the last 40-odd years which grew our country to the present area of about 700 sq km and a projected area of 780 sq km, Singapore would be the most densely populated country with 12,800 persons per sq km of habitable area if the population is projected to grow to 5 million. If the population is planned for 6.5 million, the average number of persons per sq km is 16,640.”

He concluded, “We could live with the accolade such as the busiest port, best run airline and airport but the accolade that we are the densest populated sovereign state is one which we could live without.”

The consequences of high density

Well said! I wonder why such a well-researched letter with good arguments should be consigned to the online forum. The printed version would have allowed all Singaporeans to ponder over the problem and debate on it. It would also show that good ideas for the country need not come from highly-paid officials, policy-makers or scholars.

Any research scientist who has studied rats in an overpopulated situation will tell you that over-crowding is not a good thing for those rodents. They suffer from infectious diseases, become violent (they even form gangs), most become withdrawn, passive and some mount male and female rats indiscriminately.

Of course rats are not human beings but the biological needs for space and resources is a common demoninator influencing both human and rat behaviour.

William Cobett said, “Jails, barracks, factories in 1820s do not corrupt by their walls but by their condensed numbers. Populous cities corrupt for the same cause.”

So what should citizens expect when Singapore becomes over-populated? We must expect noise levels to be increased, more traffic congestion and more pollution from smoke emission and waste. Singaporeans must put up with having to manoeuvre through crowds in public areas, long queues for a lot of services and the squeeze on public transport. There will be very little space for fun and recreation as all these places will be packed during the weekends. Trying to get across the Causeway during the weekends will take many more hours than now.

On the health side, the control of an outbreak of infectious diseases in a dense population will spread easily and be harder to manage.

Over-crowding also reduces fertility and causes stress-related diseases like ulcers, enlarged adrenals, chronic heart disease and mental illness.

On the social side, there will be a higher rate of crimes, drug abuses, suicides, accidents and juvenile delinquency.

In a situation where resources, including jobs and space become scarce, the weak and the minorities will suffer.

Moreover, when the numbers to make up the population target is achieved through importing foreigners, then the friction will end up along ethnic lines. An intolerable living density will push those better qualified Singaporeans to emigrate and thus increase the ratio of foreigners to citizens.

We have been trying very hard over the years to build social cohesion through many activities that promote racial harmony and through community activities like singing national day songs. All these will be undone when good Singaporeans leave and they are replaced by foreigners. It is not hard to imagine the day when the economic clout will fall into the hands of the foreigners and the key positions in the various corporations will be in the hands of non-Singaporeans because good Singaporeans become scarce. When such a time comes, the ordinary Singaporeans will be no better than a colonized people, with their lives dictated by some global nomads.

Why cities thrive

Cities grow and die. They die when they outgrow themselves. They die when they stagnate and lose their vitality. They die when their inhabitants no longer care.

For Singapore, because the city is also the country, this means that, if the city dies, the country perishes as well. This was probably why the island of Temasek decayed and sunk into near-oblivion in the 14th Century until Stamford Raffles re-discovered it in 1819.

So why do our planners want to turn our city-state into a population of 6.5 million? Are they just thinking of economic growth without considering the side-effects of an over-crowded city? Are our citizens just digits and robots?

Major cities in the world have no problem because the sizes of their countries allow their people to commute 150km to 200km to and fro from work. They can live outside the city. In Singapore, if you drive more than 50km in a straight line, you’ll end up in the sea.

The health and life of a city is not in its great number of people but on the quality of its people. When people become apprehensive, apathetic and live like over-crowded rats, the city loses its vibrancy and begins to stagnate.

A city needs to rejuvenate, transform and re-create itself continually in order to stay healthy and alive. How can an over-crowded place with all the ills of high density be able to do that? What more if the population is already stifled by an overbearing political climate, which has caused apathy, to start with?

At the moment, Singapore is a fairly clean and safe city. It is still physically a comfortable and convenient place to live in. However, once the population goes over an optimum level, it may not be that clean, safe or comfortable.

It is a mistake to think that the higher the density, the better the economic growth and the more vibrant a city will become. It would be a mistake to think that by just focusing on the physical aspects, we will become a great global city.

A great global city must not just be a comfortable and convenient place to live. It must also be a great place to live, a satisfying place to work and an interesting place to play in. There must be life, energy and a soul. And what gives a great global city this verve and vitality is the drive and enthusiasm of the people who reside in it -– the energy of its own people supplemented by the boost from good imports.

What is the point of having a good physical environment, many great buildings with beautiful architecture and the most advanced technological infrastructures if our people do not have the drive and enthusiasm? If the people are apathetic and selfish, whether as a result of a stifling political climate or a extremely dense population, the city will be as listless as a sparkling shopping centre that has rude and disinterested staff.

The People Factor

The people factor is, therefore, the most important ingredient in the making of a great global city. A city that is a city-state can only be vibrant if there are enough citizens to lead changes, to create and to innovate.

New York, London and Hong Kong are examples of such a city. In the January 28th 2008 issue of Time magazine, these three cities, collectively known as Ny.lon.kong, were given the credit of driving the global economy. They are places where new ideas and new concepts are always hatching. They are fast and lively because of the people and not the skyscrapers.

Tricia Haynes, former inhabitant of New York wrote, “New Yorkers are the most vociferous people on earth. In New York everyone has a voice and everyone feels entitled to exercise it.” This is what makes New York throb and why it is able to attract “the ambitious, the flamboyant and those who want a slice of the action”.

A city that reverberates with verve and energy rejuvenates itself and acts as a magnet for people and ideas.

Singapore, therefore, needs to change if we are going to compete effectively against the likes of these three cities. As long as our people are tuned to act on cues from above and conditioned to move like a herd, then we can never hope to see Singaporeans experimenting and exploring new frontiers.

When we were a third world country, the opposition PAP complained about a biased press. When we were in Malaysia, the opposition PAP complained about a controlled press. Now that we have become a 1st world country, the PAP no longer complains about the local press. In fact they now feel that a free press is not the answer to all of a country’s development problems.

To bolster this argument, countries with rampant corruption and poverty are held up as examples of what we might become with a free press. Of course, the countries with growth and lesser corruption and a free press are not mentioned, for example, New York, London and Hong Kong — the cities held up for praise in the Time lead article.

New York is full of critics and investigative reporters and people demonstrate in Central Park for all sorts of reason. It has a free press.

Likewise for London. It has its full share of critical reporters. The press remains free.

Hong Kong is very Asian and belongs to China but yet the people demonstrate at the slightest unhappiness. The boisterous media are very jealous in protecting their press freedom and yet this has not reduced Hong Kong to poverty.

A free press and democracy have not reduced these places into penury. Why then are we so afraid of getting Singapore to join the Ny.lon.kong League? Why are we still reluctant to let our citizens have the space to create and work and nurture a conducive environment for them to have a voice and feel entitled to express it?

The three model cities are ahead of us because they allow diversity in the physical environment, in economic activities, in the social settings and, more importantly, in the area of ideas and thoughts.

Diversity is the engine of life and spontaneity in a city. According to Jane Jacobs, a writer, activist, and city aficionado, cities need “a most intricate and closed-grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially.”

Furthermore, “cities are natural generators of diversity and prolific incubators of new enterprises and ideas of all kinds. They are the natural economic homes of immense numbers and ranges of small enterprises.”

As a city-state, Singaporeans have no choice but to try and make Singapore a truly great global city if they want to survive. At the same time the government has a responsibility to provide our citizens the conducive environment and the right climate for physical, economic, social, cultural and political diversities to attain it.

It is not just the numbers that count. It is the quality of the people. The people must feel free and motivated. They must feel, and be manifestly shown, that this country belongs to them.

Written by Dr Wong Wee Nam
25 Feb 2008

Tags:

Comments

24 Comments on Dr Wong Wee Nam: Why Do We Need 6.5 Million People?

  1. Daily SG: 27 Feb 2008 « The Singapore Daily on Wed, 27th Feb 2008 11:03 am

    2. [...] Strangers in a strange land – Sgpolitics: Dr Wong Wee Nam: Why Do We Need 6.5 Million People? [...]

  2. Robert HO on Wed, 27th Feb 2008 4:13 pm

    3. RH:
    Thank you for a great and insightful essay that is as profoundly disturbing as it is brilliant. Thank you again for opening my eyes and mind to so much.

  3. Yeo Suan Heng on Wed, 27th Feb 2008 10:38 pm

    4. Insightful article!

    Good piece, Dr Wong. Really gets the reader to ponder over the population issue.

  4. Flamey on Wed, 27th Feb 2008 11:06 pm

    5. I beg to differ. WIth adequate planning, our city state can comfortably fit 6.5 million people or more easily. The influx of foreigners is
    not necessarily bad, it creates competition for our young and also inject a dose of vibrancy in our society and economy.
    The economy thrives and most important the survival of this nation which has no resources and country side to depend on. So never mind if the foreigners outnumber Singaporeans as long as our economic is in good health.

    HK is worse off than Singapore because it has less disposable land than us, yet it prospers despite 7.5 million on just 250km of flat land (while the rest are mountainous area). Our children should not be protected in the first place, they should be taught to compete in this globalised world, the survival of the fittest.

  5. one kind on Thu, 28th Feb 2008 12:24 am

    6. a reasoned piece. we have none of the personalities of those places you had mentioned. we are frightened, insipid, omniscience and the midget within the wizard of oz.

    at best, we imitate,xerox and regurgitate.

    as for projected population, it could be an alibi to elevate our weak property market or land value plus many other vested business interests and the optimum target may just be part of a stratagem never meant to be achieved

    mm did readjusted down the number only recently. we hope and can only speculate.

  6. admin on Thu, 28th Feb 2008 2:18 am

    7. Dear Flamey (comment 4),

    Are you sure we can comfortably fit 6.5 million? Have you seen Orchard Road during festive seasons, Shenton way during peak hours, or the buses & MRTs in the mornings and evenings, or shopping malls during the weekends? Are our HDB flats a mere 5 storeys high, or are they towering into the sky, filled with pigeonholes and crammed miserable people raising tempers at each other?

    Competition is good because it is the foundation of capitalism, which is the only known way to create sustainable wealth for any nation. But as long as the concept of “nationhood” exists and is deeply ingrained in the psyche of Man, then it must be Singapore for Singaporeans FIRST. Why do we tell our young men to serve National Service and put their lives on the line for Family and Country? Why do we tell our citizens to participate actively in the community? Why do we call ourselves a nation if we are merely meant to be a hotel, a one-stop shop for a quick career detour before the next major destination?

    In capitalism, there is indeed survival of the fittest. But in my centrist-socialist ideology, it MUST be the job of government to temper the extremes that capitalism often engenders, by re-distribution the nation’s wealth and creating a more level playing field even while the inexorable forces of the free-market creates peaks and troughs.

    E-Jay

  7. kaypoh on Thu, 28th Feb 2008 8:14 am

    8. Competition is good because it is the foundation of capitalism, which is the only known way to create sustainable wealth for any nation(sorry, not the only. it is too quick, too damaging and premise on a weak foundation. there are better ways that have been suggested and you should read wider to reconsider). But as long as the concept of “nationhood” exists and is deeply ingrained in the psyche of Man, then it must be Singapore for Singaporeans FIRST( absolutely selfish, may even be self destructive and not consistent with global community precepts). Why do we tell our young men to serve National Service and put their lives on the line for Family and Country(selfishly insecure perhaps?)? Why do we tell our citizens to participate actively in the community(what community????)? Why do we call ourselves a nation if we are merely meant to be a hotel, a one-stop shop for a quick career detour before the next major destination( a dichotomy which part of capitalistic thinking. can’t just accept the good bits without the bad)?

    In capitalism, there is indeed survival of the fittest(that makes you a beast). But in my centrist-socialist ideology, it MUST be the job of government to temper the extremes that capitalism often engenders, by re-distribution the nation’s wealth and creating a more level playing field even while the inexorable forces of the free-market creates peaks and troughs(that’s a joke. why don’t you ask them to redistribute their personal millions huh?).

    incidentally, the peaks and troughs in the market favors the rich and powerful mostly. definitely not the poor. an evil and wicked system?

  8. SGDaily Roundup: Week 9 « The Singapore Daily on Sat, 1st Mar 2008 1:08 am

    9. [...] Strangers in a strange land – Sgpolitics: Dr Wong Wee Nam: Why Do We Need 6.5 Million People? [...]

  9. FINE_City_dweller on Wed, 16th Apr 2008 3:52 pm

    10. In a team of 4 at my current workplace, I’m the only local (foreigners who are converted to citizens are not considered).
    Can’t imagine the situation when more foreigners come in.

    I’m questioning whether these ‘foreign talents’ are really talents. Are we saying that SG has a lack of local talents?
    The use of the word ‘talent’ is a lame way of justifying the need for a large number of foreigners.

    In fact, I already do not see the benefits of being a singaporean, other than some subsidies that are insignificant.
    Moreover, local males are still liable for NS, and while they are serving, the foreigners keep coming in to take over our jobs. The saying that one who serves NS get higher wages is only applicable for the civil sector. In the private sector, the one who serves NS is 2 years behind the foreign counterparts.

  10. admin on Sun, 18th May 2008 11:35 pm

    11. TM requested me to post the following comment on his behalf as his browser could not process it:

    http://sgentropy.blogspot.com/

    Our city planners have no understanding of the concepts of overshoot, carrying capacity and peak oil. If they did, they would be working to lower the population instead. Growth has its limits. Singapore is not exempt from the laws of nature: growth in human population is limited by whatever necessary factor (in this case, food or water) in the environment that is in shortest supply (Liebig’s law of the minimum). We are fast approaching a peak in oil and food production. Thereafter, supplies will be insufficient to meet demand. If the decline in oil and food supplies is gradual, our population will decline smoothly and orderly. But if the decline in oil and food supplies is sharp, then chaos will ensue and a population crash, or die-off, is highly probable.

    http://sgentropy.blogspot.com/2008/05/bartlett-on-exponential-growth.html
    http://tinyurl.com/62uwq8

  11. Marx Seet on Mon, 26th May 2008 3:37 pm

    12. The matter of fact self-destruction sequence in Singapore had already “ticking” few years ago, if you haven’t realized yet. It start off number of children committed suicide due to school pressure. Then you have social problem such as robbing, jumping into MRT tracks, murder.

    Personally, I am planning to get out of this island by the age of 45.

  12. singaporean in HK on Sun, 1st Jun 2008 7:15 pm

    13. Dear Flamey,

    u said HK is worst off. we like to compare ourselves to hk, but are both really comparable?

    yes, hk has less disposable land, but hk is bigger than sg, comprising of hk island, lantau island and kowloon and new territory which is linked to mainland china. u r right in saying that hk is more mountainous, but it has a diversity of landscape, and it is also these mountains that make hk a good place to hike too. whereas in sg, if we want to break- away from the crowd, where can we really go? bkt timah hill? going to JB?

    and dun forget that sg is hot throughout the year, whereas in hk, u got the cooling weather, and that makes the crowded more bearable. i agree with Yong Koi Kwong (who posted on ST online forum) that “It is very unpleasant to live in such an environment if there is no natural ventilation to take away one’s perspiration”. i can’t imagine how it would be like with 6.5 million ppl in a small crampy island-state under the hot and humid weather in sg, and with global warming, i doubt the weather in sg will get any cooler.

  13. Andrew Tang on Sun, 15th Jun 2008 7:54 pm

    14. Too bad you are not a Lee or related?

    It would make a world of difference if that world happens to be a ting isle in the sun.

  14. Chao Fan on Tue, 17th Jun 2008 11:29 am

    15. We have the highest paid ministers in the world, I’m sure they are capable enough of handling any possible pandemics ,sociological, terrorism & psychological issues that may potentially break out. With the effective SARS containment experience we had, it clearly indicates that diseases can be held at bay. Given their stratospheric salaries I’m sure our ministers would welcome the challenges brought along with a higher population. After all didn’t Maslow say that we seek self actualization as the ultimate form of fulfillment? Perhaps our Ministers need a bigger population to further showcase their abundant talents. We have no natural resources, the only way to compete is via human resources. Ever watched the movie Matrix? The machines had no natural resources left for energy production, so in order to survive they bred human beings as biochemical batteries. Its a smart & logical choice! We should be glad that we have a thinking government as brilliant as supercomputers! Press freedom is overrated, why do we need so much press freedom for? Hollywood movies are better for us. Drawing parallels to the Matrix movie why do you seek the red pill when everything is fine and dandy, especially now when you can live to 85 and enjoy your retirement in bliss?

  15. Why Do We Need 6.5 Million People? « I Sound My Barbaric Yawp Over The Rooftops Of The World on Fri, 27th Jun 2008 3:15 pm

    16. [...] 27, 2008 Why Do We Need 6.5 Million People? Posted by suat under ♠   An interesting read, even for someone who has apathetic towards local politics. [...]

  16. missy on Mon, 7th Jul 2008 2:33 pm

    17. I agreed that Singapore is eroding by attracting so many people from the developing country, esp from China.

    We are now going back into the old days, in 1800, where every race is speaking their own languages! There is so much emphasis on the chinese language that English is not important anymore. English is the common language that we shared among all races. But now, just look at the emphasis of knowing your own language.

    What’s worst is that the govt likes to associate Chinese language with the Chinese race. It’s as it’s a shameful thing if the chinese race doesnt know how to speak or communicate in Chinese. There are so many overseas chinese in the world, but I have never seen a country emphasized so much on the importance of chinese language, as much as in Singapore! We are not even like Taiwan or HK where they actually belong to China.

    We don’t even belong to China, and yet the govt seems very keen to turn Singapore into China, we should change our name to “CHINA CITY’, not “GLOBAL CITY”. Being a world class global city means able to accomodate ALL RACES in Singapore, but just look at the situation we are in now. There are so much emphasize about Chinese language, so does that mean other races have to pick up the language so to communicate with the china nationals. Why don’t they learn English language so that they can communciate with other races or other non chinese speaking Singaporeans? So what if the chinese Singaporeans root originated from China, but thats thousands and hundreds of years ago, we were born and raised here, Singapore, NOT CHINA, so why the need to constantly link us to them? We are Singaporeans, not Chinese CHINA! The fact that we are born and raised here, we should be proud to call ourselves as Singaporean, not Chinese CHINA!

    If we really want to link our roots, all human races were originally from Africa. SO why don’t we all link back our roots to Africa and start learning African languages??

  17. freedom on Sun, 3rd Aug 2008 8:36 pm

    18. Hey Flamey,

    You say HK is worse off. With our government and their “rules”, we’re far worse off than days gone by. In days pass, people could make a living from their homes. They could make ends meat by doing things like sewing clothes, carpentary, selling curry puffs or opening a little shp to sell nick nacks. In HK it’s still like that….not here.

    In Singapore, you need a “licence” to do any business. You need to register at RCB. You need to tp up your Medisave. You need to open a business account with a reputable bank. You need to file taxes for something that is meant to add a few more dollars to the families of lesser education or ability. Even if you want to have a home business, you have to register it like any business even if your plan was to stay home and take care of the kids and “God forbit…another child like the government wants” us to do.

    Here the rich get richer. Those with power and money don’t like to see others do well unless it’s in their interest as well. you can’t do anything without them wanting to get their hands into your pockets or getting a slice of your pie. Flamey, don’t say that our children should learn to compete in a global world when they have it spoon fed to them by their parents and government. Foreigners that come from India or China, as an example, knows to have that “competitive” spirit in them because that came from nothing. They really know what it’s like to “earn” a living.

    So question remain, do we need that many people in Singapore? The push for more babies and foreigners into the country is debateble. The real question one should ask is…why is the government pushing so hard for that figure? I know they got answer like the aging population and such but who benefits from the increase? What does the government see in terms of dollars and cents (because they always do) for the people and themselves? Will the living conditions be bearable for all…show the “big blueprint” that they have to let us know that we will not be tearing at each others throats in terms of cost of living, housing, welfare, society, social graces, business, taxes, ERP and all the other government inclusive “Singapore standards” that they have for us today. Will it benefit them tomorrow?

    Lastly, Flamey….I can say with certainty there’s a lot of people that would rather live in HK and other parts of the world rather than Singapore. Before you can tell me to go live in those place……I’ll tell you I have and I’ve lived in Singapore in it’s starting stages in the 70′s, selling curry puffs and nasi lemak made from home. Adding money to put food on the table in our household. Back then, we may never have had the MRT, CTE, Internet, Cell phones or other conveiniences of today BUT we also didn’t have the congestion, noise pollution, over crowding, ERP, SM, MM or other trumped up names to keep people in office past the legal retirement age. So Flamey…are you brain washed like others out there?

  18. » Will i have kids when i’m married? A new beginning: Thoughts and experiences of my life on Thu, 7th Aug 2008 8:36 am

    19. [...] in a few years’ time, I think i will personally grow crazy. Hey its true, just read this article by Dr Wong Wee Nam. Heck, if rats “.. suffer from infectious diseases, become violent (they even form gangs), [...]

  19. Animal on Fri, 10th Oct 2008 11:13 pm

    20. Brilliant read! Well said Dr Wong, Kaypoh and Admin.
    It truly describes the plight of the country and what it is becoming, at least that is how i feel and i believe many of the singaporeans do to.
    I think Singapore of the future will be like a big hotel for people to come and go, to work, play, and to just stay for awhile.
    And if a war breaks out, i believe only the true Singaporeans will stay and fight, willing to make their ultimate sacrifice, not for their country but for their families as they might not leave the place in time because all the rich and the powerful families had beaten them to the planes and ships for their getaway. Yeah that’s survival of the fittest at its best or ugly, depending how you look at it.

  20. putra on Wed, 29th Oct 2008 10:49 am

    21. The problem of Sleeping in public places must be very widespread as can be seen from this website:

    http://photobucket.com/images/singapore%20homeless/

    October 20, 2008

    No sleeping here too…

    Following the recent case of the fella who was fined for sleeping in the park; notices being put up at the void decks. For those who can’t see properly, it reads:

    “Dear Residents,
    Please note that you are not allowed to sleep in the common areas.
    Offenders will be prosecuted.
    Thank you for your co-operation and understanding”

    Oct 14, 2008
    Costly park bench nap
    Nappers can be fined $200 for misuse of park facility.

    The National Parks Board (NParks) fined the private bus driver for having misused the park facility by sleeping on the bench. — PHOTO: THE NEW PAPER

    WHAT was supposed to be a free 15-minute nap on a park bench turned into a costly snooze for one Singaporean. The New Paper on Tuesday reported that a 62-year-old, who only wanted to be known as Mr Kassim, was fined $200 when he dozed off on a Sun Plaza Park bench while taking shelter from the rain. The National Parks Board (NParks) fined the private bus driver for having misused the park facility by sleeping on the bench. The incident happened on Sept 1 at a park in Tampines. Mr Kassim had dozed off on one of the wooden benches while seeking shelter from a heavy downpour.

    He woke up about 15 minutes later to see two men, who would later identify themselves as NParks rangers, walking towards him. They asked for his identity card, told him he had ‘abused park facilities by sleeping on the park bench’, and issued him a ticket. Mr Kassim accepted the ticket despite not knowing it was an offence to sleep on a park bench. Five days later, he received an NParks letter detailing his offence and asking him to pay the $200 fine. When he went to the NParks office to make payment, he claimed he was told by a staff member that he could appeal. But he decided against it, citing it would be a hassle. According to an NParks spokesman, more than 10 people have been fined for misusing the facilities in the parks. The spokesman did not say if these specifically involved sleeping on park benches. He told TNP: ‘We try to create the conditions that make visitors feel at ease… When people abuse our parks by overstaying or squatting, they make genuine park users feel uncomfortable. Others sleep on benches or in shelters in an inconsiderate manner and deny park users from these facilities.’ Of eight regular park-goers surveyed by The New Paper, none knew that sleeping on park benches was an offence. On the NParks website, there is a list of ‘Dos’ and ‘Don’ts’ for visiting parks.

    Sleeping on a park bench was not among the ‘Don’ts’, but there was a disclaimer which said the list was ‘not exhaustive or intended to be a complete list of the prohibitions or regulations governing our parks’

  21. putra on Wed, 29th Oct 2008 11:02 am

    22. It’s driving people to sleep in the streets as can be seen in website:

    http://photobucket.com/images/singapore%20homeless/

    No sleeping here too…
    Following the recent case of the fella who was fined for sleeping in the park; notices being put up at the void decks. For those who can’t see properly, it reads:
    “Dear Residents,
    Please note that you are not allowed to sleep in the common areas.
    Offenders will be prosecuted.
    Thank you for your co-operation and understanding”
    October 20, 2008

    Oct 14, 2008
    Costly park bench nap
    Nappers can be fined $200 for misuse of park facility.

    The National Parks Board (NParks) fined the private bus driver for having misused the park facility by sleeping on the bench. — PHOTO: THE NEW PAPER

    WHAT was supposed to be a free 15-minute nap on a park bench turned into a costly snooze for one Singaporean. The New Paper on Tuesday reported that a 62-year-old, who only wanted to be known as Mr Kassim, was fined $200 when he dozed off on a Sun Plaza Park bench while taking shelter from the rain. The National Parks Board (NParks) fined the private bus driver for having misused the park facility by sleeping on the bench.

    The incident happened on Sept 1 at a park in Tampines. Mr Kassim had dozed off on one of the wooden benches while seeking shelter from a heavy downpour. He woke up about 15 minutes later to see two men, who would later identify themselves as NParks rangers, walking towards him. They asked for his identity card, told him he had ‘abused park facilities by sleeping on the park bench’, and issued him a ticket. Mr Kassim accepted the ticket despite not knowing it was an offence to sleep on a park bench.

    Five days later, he received an NParks letter detailing his offence and asking him to pay the $200 fine. When he went to the NParks office to make payment, he claimed he was told by a staff member that he could appeal. But he decided against it, citing it would be a hassle. According to an NParks spokesman, more than 10 people have been fined for misusing the facilities in the parks.

    The spokesman did not say if these specifically involved sleeping on park benches. He told TNP: ‘We try to create the conditions that make visitors feel at ease… When people abuse our parks by overstaying or squatting, they make genuine park users feel uncomfortable. Others sleep on benches or in shelters in an inconsiderate manner and deny park users from these facilities.’ Of eight regular park-goers surveyed by The New Paper, none knew that sleeping on park benches was an offence. On the NParks website, there is a list of ‘Dos’ and ‘Don’ts’ for visiting parks.

    Sleeping on a park bench was not among the ‘Don’ts’, but there was a disclaimer which said the list was ‘not exhaustive or intended to be a complete list of the prohibitions or regulations governing our parks’

  22. gayathri on Sat, 2nd May 2009 8:25 pm

    23. Beautiful article.

    Today I picked up an interesting book. A title that ran along the lines of why economics can explain everything….and I thought to myself that today, thats what we have become.

    I am not Xenophobic. But I believe that as people, we are products of our environment. A foreigner can never be a product like me, a 3rd generation singaporean. I would love to be proven wrong — I really would.

    Sometimes, people with opinions are only that — people with opinions. And I could be one of them. Thankfully, this article has clarity and maturity of thought. And i’m glad i read a rational article on the singaporean/ foreigner issue. For ONCE. Thank you for that.

    ;)

  23. thinktok on Tue, 26th May 2009 3:43 pm

    24. All the points stated above are valid except the part on Govt bashing. We have no qualms about real foreign talent as it will improve Singapore’e productivity and competitiveness. We can consider ourselves lucky if they want to come.

    The Govt has stated that it will retain the natural population make-up amongst the various races namely: Chinese, Malay, Indian and others. By now people should have realised that there is an agenda by certain race to increase the numbers notwithstanding that the parents may not have jobs or good enough jobs to support their children.

    So bringing in FT becomes a do or die issue. Only way is for all the races to produce at least 2 or 3 children to maintain the stated ratio and this will sobviate the need to import foreign talent.

  24. Anonymous on Sat, 6th Feb 2010 9:33 pm

    25. MM Lee tell us to accept the new immigrants because our forefathers is also immigrants. I agreed but our forefathers come to Singapore when the fruit trees did not bear fruits yet. They came to help cultivate the soil and water the seeds until they all grow into tall fruits bearing trees. Today immigrants come because there is plenty of fruits to eat. If Singapore continue to have slow GDP growth or minus GDP growth for the next ten years or more like Japan, I am very sure the progeny of farmers and coolies will stay put in Singapore but I am not too sure about the progeny of mandarins. PAP government want to increase the population to 6.5 million simply because of their business point of views. I remember about 40 years ago one commodity guru wrote in the Asia Magazine forcasting gold will reach US$1000 rom the then US$200/oz but none of the financial experts here agree with him but today gold have reach US$1300.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!