Skip to main content

Next step: Moving unproductive Singaporeans out of Singapore



Judging from the latest development in our population strategies, some Singaporeans especially those unproductive and uncompetitive ones may have to leave our first world country and move to the third world countries.  The Prime Minister Office has claimed that new immigrants are “talents and good quality”. 

As compared to new citizens, old and existing citizens are not that talent and good quality.  So, with low earning power and capability, how can they live in our expensive first world country?  One option is to move out of Singapore with the sponsorship from the government.  Not to forget even foreigners staying here have commented that it is not the duty of the government to provide jobs to the citizens. Hence, these talented foreigners may also consider sponsoring the leaving of unproductive Singaporeans.

Asking unproductive and uncompetitive citizens to leave their home countries is not something new.  Japan has tried to move some citizens to Brazil before, especially those retirees and sick citizens. Not long ago, we also heard the suggestion of going to JB for cheaper medical care and old age nursing. It is not a surprise the next suggestion from our dear leader is to move out of Singapore and stay in the cheaper countries.

Suddenly we realize that there are citizens earning third world wages in our first world country. We also notice that there are inadequate medical cares for citizens.  It is a situation of having a first world medical environment and at the same time citizens are enjoying third world medical coverage and care. We should treat these problems seriously and with urgency.

So, we are a first world country yet also a third world country, depending on your earning power.  There is no way, citizens with third world wages and medical coverage can enjoy their lives here.    Unless, we can create an exclusive third world environment - cheaper housing, cheaper medical care, cheaper food etc. – for low income families in Singapore.  This is certain not possible because this little red dot has not land for the poor, for the exclusive low productivity zone.

The alternative perhaps is to send unproductive citizens to third world countries where they can continue to enjoy their lives with their third world income.  For this, the Singapore government may sponsor their daily expenses – just to keep them out of Singapore and leave the space for talent and good quality immigrants. This also makes economic sense: our land is for talents to maximize profit and not for low productivity, retired and old workers. The generated profit can well cover the sponsored daily expenses in the third world countries.  

This can be the next study of the National Population and Talent Division in the PMO.  Bring in 25,000 new young and talent immigrants and at the same time moving out the same number of old, unproductive and uncompetitive citizens to third world countries will definitely cut down our dependency ratio.  We also don’t have to worry about the total fertility rate.

Whenever there are suggestions different from the PAP, the government will paint a negative picture of the suggested proposals.   Some call it ‘scare tactics”.  But how far can the ‘scare tactics’ go? How frighten will the voters react and continue to support the PAP?

When you know one day you may be forced to move out of the country, not because of political reasons like the past, but the economical reason of living here, will you still support the PAP?   

Is “Loving Singapore, Our Home” still relevant to you? If you are forced to leave the country and seek residences in other low cost countries, will you still love Singapore and consider your home?

Act now before it is too late if you don’t want to be landed in a third world country. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...