<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Citizen-to-population ratio important for survival
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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
