I thought I should post it now so that there will be transparency in this affair.

The tender for the town council IT system was released on February 4th. I did try to get the tender documents but failed.

Here’s the email flow – minus the recipient info:

1. Feb 26, 2013

Subject: Town Council Management System tender docs

Hi.  I refer to the tender that was called for a new IT system for managing the town council.  I can’t seem to find the document on your website (nor on GeBiz).  Can you please point me to where it is?

Thanks.

2. Feb 26, 2013

Dear Mr Harish Pillay

Kindly contact me regarding your enquiries.

3. Feb 26, 2013

[Person at town council] -

> Dear Mr Harish Pillay
>
> Kindly contact me regarding your enquiries.

Thanks for the reply as well as speaking on the phone earlier.  It is a pity that I can’t participate even though the date is not due yet.

Thanks.

4. Feb 27, 2013

Dear Mr Harish Pillay

As mentioned, the tender is advertised in The Straits Times and Zaobao on 4 Feb 2013.

Interested and eligible tenderers are to attend the tender briefing on 7 Feb 2013 before they are allowed to purchase the tender documents.

Thanks.

5. Feb 27, 2013

[Person at town council] -

> Dear Mr Harish Pillay
>
> As mentioned, the tender is advertised in The Straits Times and Zaobao on 4 Feb 2013.
>
> Interested and eligible tenderers are to attend the tender briefing on 7 Feb 2013 before they are allowed to purchase the tender documents.

Thanks for the confirmation.  I find it strange that even the tender docs are not on GeBiz.  Any reason why there is an exception?

Thanks.

6. Feb 28, 2013

Dear Mr Harish Pillay

We are not a government agency and as such we are ineligible to participate in the Gebiz.

7. Feb 28, 2013

[Person at town council] -

> Dear Mr Harish Pillay
>
> We are not a government agency and as such we are ineligible to participate in the Gebiz.

Thanks for the clarification.

8.  Mar 20, 2013

[Person at town council] -

Hi.  I am writing to you to find out if there has been any submissions to the tender that closed earlier this month.  I’d appreciate if you can tell me who they are and when do you expect the tender to be awarded.

Thanks.

9. Mar 22, 2013

Dear Mr Harish Pillay

The provisional tender result is posted on our Town Council website “http://www.btptc.org.sg/“.

Progress on tenders currently under evaluation cannot be disclosed.

10. Mar 22, 2013

[Person at town council] -

> Dear Mr Harish Pillay
>
> The provisional tender result is posted on our Town Council website “http://www.btptc.org.sg/“.

Thank you.  I assume this is the page: http://www.btptc.org.sg/Tender/0106/A-161.htm

> Progress on tenders currently under evaluation cannot be disclosed.

Certainly.  Is there a way to get a copy of the tender specs to understand what the 3 options are?
Thanks again.

11. Mar 22, 2013

Dear Harish Pillay

Only the eligible tenderers who have attended the tender briefing are allowed to collect the tender documents.

Regards

12. Mar 22, 2013

[Person at town council] -

> Only the eligible tenderers who have attended the tender briefing are allowed to collect the tender documents.

Yes, I understand that. You did indicate that in an earlier email.  But since the tender has been submitted, I am wondering if the document is available, even at a price.

13. Mar 22, 2013

Dear Harish Pillay

The tender documents can only be purchased by the eligible tenderers who have attended the tender briefing.

So, you can see that unless you attended the briefing, you cannot get to the tender documents. I would need to reach out to those who have submitted the tenders to get to the document. Why would this be made so difficult to be acquired? What’s the secret in those documents?

Town Councils exist by virtue of the Town Council Act Chapter 329A. We know the reasons for creating town councils but from the citizen’s perspective the town council is part of municipal government as suggested by former PM Goh Chok Tong:

So in a way, the MPs became the elected representatives of this municipal aspect of government. But more importantly, we also believed in the devolution of powers downwards. This is to give a stake, first, to the MPs, then next to the grassroots leaders, and of course, very importantly, to the residents. This is your Town Council.

So, I think in the email exchange above, the person from the town council is totally wrong to say that they are not a government agency.

The current PM has called for a review of the town council is a good thing as the unstated objectives (“let’s make it difficult to let non-PAP parties win GRCs”) has now gone away.

Talking about the review of of the AIM fiasco, the PM gave the MND two months from January 8. It is now almost end of March 2013 May and thus far nothing has surfaced.

Since there is supposed to be a review of the AIM transaction, is it still appropriate for the 14 PAP run town councils to call for a tender to “replace” the system they already have? Or should it be held off until the review is done. The answer is quite clear.

Switching gears, let’s look at the tender submission result.

Option 1            Option 2               Option 3      Alternative Option

1. NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd           –                         –                $17,610,820.00          -

2. HCL Singapore Pte Ltd        $27,549,208.46   $21,063,955.09             –                     -

3. NCS Pte Ltd                             –                         –                $31,485,192.00     $16,798,500.00

Option 1: Ownership model (hardware is decentralized)
Option 2: Software ownership model, hardware service model (hardware is centralized)
Option 3: Software and hardware service model (hardware is centralized)
Alternative: Decentralized solution for 3 years of contract period

On April 2nd, it was announced that the tender was awarded to NEC Singapore. For a lot of money – $16.8 million dollars to be exact. No mention of anything in this being open source, no git repository nothing. No indication of the poison pill clause “if there is a change in the boundaries or management of town councils, the application stops working” etc.

The PM asked for a review of the AIM scandal. Today, May 1st, there is still no sign of it. How long does it take the MND to do the work? I volunteer to do this due diligence. I am sure they will not take this offer, even though it is given in good faith.

He killed himself.

He killed his only child, his daughter before killing himself.

He lost his wife a few years ago to illness.

I feel upset. I did not see this coming. He was always jovial, friendly, and an overall nice person. Heck, he even joined me on a hash run.

But today, he is gone.

Is there anything I could have done? He never seemed moody or reserved. Always smiling, always friendly.

Goodbye Arvind.

(page 2, Straits Times Monday March 4, 2013)

I applaud the SEATCA advertisement but I am sure that there are other even more pressing issues that the TPP will be working on that will have significant implications for all of us in the computing, media and related industries.

The article’s headline is misleading to suggest that it is a “free-trade” talks. It is more of how much can Big Business restrict people with extended copyright, patent and other money grabbing tricks.

As can be seen in the ad, there was a briefing that needed to be attended by interested parties that was held on February 7, which happens to be a couple of days before the Lunar New Year holidays. While that is not a big deal, the chances of people missing out on attending this briefing is pretty high given the long weekend that came after that.

Notwithstanding that, it is important to note that if you did not attend the briefing, you cannot get to the actual tender documents even if you choose to pay the $107 for the documents. The tender does ask for the interested parties to be of the EPU/CMP/10 class. If that is the type of entities that are minimally needed, this is a really big project. If it is a big project, then why are the documents not found on the GeBIZ site? The GeBIZ site says that:

“GeBIZ is the Singapore government’s one-stop e-procurement portal. All the public sector’s invitations for quotations and tenders are posted on GeBIZ. Suppliers can search for government procurement opportunities, download tender documents, and submit their bids online. GeBIZ allows any supplier to access public sector business opportunities anywhere and anytime with just an Internet connection.”

Of course, if someone can actually find the tender docs on the GeBIZ, I stand corrected.

I would want to know a few things about the new system that is being requested:

a) Is the project going to be built using open source tools and applications?

b) Will the code of the application be made publicly downloadable once it is done – since it was paid for by tax dollars?

c) Can open source developers take part in this?

The tender closes on March 4 and I look forward to knowing the results.

The nature of National Service does involve in a big way, the sacrifice of personal time and energy of every able-bodied male 18-year-old for a period of two years. It used to be either two or two-and-a-half years when I did my NS, but it has now been made uniform to just two years. It can be argued whether the length of service should be made even shorter, but that is for another post.

Over the years, we have had a steady inflow of people who took up permanent residency and as the rules go, the children of these PRs (who themselves can become PRs, albeit second generation PRs) are then obligated to do National Service just as any citizen.

That’s the nub of the issue. I know of a couple who moved to Singapore and became PRs and started a family. Because they were PRs, they could buy HDB housing and as luck would have it for them, their block underwent a HDB redevelopment exercise that then resulted in that family getting a brand new HDB unit. That is all well and good. They, even as PRs benefited from the system.

The twist in the story is when their sons (second generation PRs) were due for enlistment, the couple managed to snag some immigration opportunity and moved off to Canada. They then cashed out the HDB apartment, made a killing and now are PRs in Canada and their sons managed to get out of their obligations to do National Service.

We can look at this story (all true, btw) and be disappointed, or look at it positively as they came to this country and worked the system and with all the unintended loop holes, they have benefited immensely.

Where does that leave, We, The Citizens? I too would like the financial windfall and perhaps have my sons not do their National Service as well, but I am not asking for that.

It is therefore, amusing, to read the suggestion by PAP MP Hri Kumar Nair who suggests a “national defense duty” (NDD) be imposed on all PRs and foreigners living in Singapore.

This from the ruling party MP whose party’s modus operandi in solving issues it to tax things (COE, Road Tax, GST etc).

On the surface, his proposal *might* sound plausible. But there are two significant flaws in it.

Firstly, the NDD cheapens the sweat, blood and economic sacrifice Singaporeans (not only the men, but their families as well) make in doing their National Service and reservist duties. “If you can’t do the work, just pay your way out” seems to be the his rationale. It suggests that we have to tax others (labelling it “duty” is hiding the truth) as a form of imposed misery. Do we have to make our neighbours to be poor(er) in order for us to succeed?

The people who come to our shores came here to make a living for themselves and to be economically active. They do pay taxes like the rest of us. If the government wants to really do the Right Thing, they should have the NS Tax Relief not be a deductible BEFORE tax, but an offset after tax assessment.

I recall doing the NS Tax Relief some years ago and found that since it is a tax relief, the real impact in including the NS Tax Relief and not made very little difference (like less than $20) in the taxable income, at least for me. So, while the NS Tax Relief looks nice on the surface and while might be a sincere attempt, it was not what one would have thought it was.

So, Mr MP, no need to place an extra tax. Do the simple change in the NS Tax Relief and you’ve got a reasonable step forward.

A second flaw in the MP’s proposal is that in the event of a crisis, it is us Singaporeans who would have to stand up and defend, not those who paid “NDD”.  They can just as well leave Singapore and return when things are OK. See the difference? Just because they’ve been NDDed, it does not mean that they’ll be picking up anything to help defend. I am sure you are not that naive, or are you Mr MP?

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” – Albert Einstein

It is a mockery of the Parliamentary process when a Member of Parliament fails to exercise her right to vote on issues that have come up for  consideration.  Whether or not there exists the anti-democratic “party whip”, as an elected MP, I expect the person to have the gumption and the conscience to vote according to what the person says.

Here is an extract (page 40) from the “Standing Orders of the Parliament of Singapore” (it’s a PDF) (the bold emphasis is mine):

VOTING IN PARLIAMENT OR A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE PARLIAMENT

Collection of voices
62. – (1) When the Speaker or Chairman has put the question at the conclusion of a debate, he shall collect the voices of the “Ayes’’ and “Noes’’ and provided that no Member then claims a division, shall declare the result in accordance with the provisions of the law(13).

(2) A Member may, instead of claiming a division, inform the Speaker or Chairman that he wishes his dissent to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report and his dissent shall be so recorded.

Procedure on divisions

63. – (1) No division shall be taken unless at least five Members rise in their places in support of it.

(2) When a division is to be proceeded with, the Speaker or the Chairman shall direct that the division bells shall be rung. After the lapse of at least one minute, the Speaker or the Chairman shall direct that the doors be locked and the Serjeant at Arms shall thereupon cause the doors to be locked.

(3) Thereafter the Speaker or Chairman shall put the question a second time and if a division is again claimed, a division shall be taken in a manner to be decided by the Speaker and the Clerk shall enter on the Votes and Proceedings a record of each Member’s vote and of the names of Members who abstain from voting.

(4) At a division a Member shall vote for the “Ayes’’ or for the “Noes’’, or expressly indicate that he abstains from voting. A Member shall not vote in a manner inconsistent with any opinion which he may have expressed when the voices were taken collectively.

(5) A Member may vote in a division although he did not hear the question put.

(6) When the votes have been collected, the Speaker or Chairman shall state the numbers voting for the “Ayes’’ and for the “Noes’’ respectively, and shall then declare the result of the division, whereupon the Serjeant at Arms shall cause the doors to be unlocked.

(7) If, from the number of Members taking part in a division, including those Members who abstain from voting, it appears that a quorum is not present, the division shall be invalid, the business then under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting and the next business shall be entered upon.

So, from the line above, 63-4: “A Member shall not vote in a manner inconsistent with any opinion which he may have expressed when the voices were taken collectively“, very simply states that one has walk the talk.

Therefore, it is extremely disappointing that MP Inderjit Singh, after making a passionate speech that clearly was critical of the Population White Paper, managed not to vote when the division was called. If Mr Singh did walk the talk, he should have at the minimum, abstained from the vote. I am sure that his abstention would have brought the wrath of his party and his party’s whip, but by not voting, he has has clearly shown that he is not able to walk the talk. That is a huge mistake on the part of Mr Singh.

Here’s a cartoon that caricatures this disappointment.

]]> http://harishpillay.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/walk-the-talk/feed/ 5 harishpillay http://harishpillay.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/this-is-too-cool/ http://harishpillay.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/this-is-too-cool/#comments Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:54:55 +0000 harishpillay http://harishpillay.wordpress.com/?p=2237 …

[harish@phoenix ~]$ traceroute 216.81.59.173 traceroute to 216.81.59.173 (216.81.59.173), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 registerlafonera.fon.com (192.168.10.1) 2.473 ms 2.937 ms 3.902 ms 2 cm1.zeta224.maxonline.com.sg (116.87.224.1) 15.342 ms 15.664 ms 16.515 ms 3 172.20.53.17 (172.20.53.17) 17.175 ms 17.540 ms 18.104 ms 4 172.26.53.1 (172.26.53.1) 18.865 ms 20.381 ms 20.813 ms 5 172.20.7.30 (172.20.7.30) 24.398 ms 24.337 ms 24.227 ms 6 203.117.35.45 (203.117.35.45) 28.237 ms 17.013 ms 16.335 ms 7 203.117.34.37 (203.117.34.37) 15.227 ms 21.645 ms 21.858 ms 8 203.117.34.198 (203.117.34.198) 20.962 ms 21.042 ms 20.766 ms 9 203.117.36.38 (203.117.36.38) 21.584 ms 22.500 ms 22.639 ms 10 paix.he.net (198.32.176.20) 213.814 ms 214.532 ms 216.222 ms 11 10gigabitethernet9-3.core1.sjc2.he.net (72.52.92.70) 209.283 ms 209.811 ms 206.368 ms 12 10gigabitethernet5-3.core1.lax2.he.net (184.105.213.5) 197.110 ms 199.926 ms 203.206 ms 13 10gigabitethernet2-3.core1.phx2.he.net (184.105.222.85) 231.479 ms 234.769 ms 234.712 ms 14 10gigabitethernet5-3.core1.dal1.he.net (184.105.222.78) 246.268 ms 246.252 ms 246.026 ms 15 10gigabitethernet5-4.core1.atl1.he.net (184.105.213.114) 273.176 ms 273.562 ms 273.933 ms 16 216.66.0.26 (216.66.0.26) 257.073 ms 257.860 ms 258.197 ms 17 * * * 18 Episode.IV (206.214.251.1) 279.888 ms 277.874 ms 280.236 ms 19 A.NEW.HOPE (206.214.251.6) 285.736 ms 284.384 ms 285.730 ms 20 It.is.a.period.of.civil.war (206.214.251.9) 291.342 ms 293.745 ms 293.975 ms 21 Rebel.spaceships (206.214.251.14) 295.027 ms 300.389 ms 300.605 ms 22 striking.from.a.hidden.base (206.214.251.17) 300.050 ms 300.106 ms 299.865 ms 23 have.won.their.first.victory (206.214.251.22) 284.885 ms 291.515 ms 293.083 ms 24 against.the.evil.Galactic.Empire (206.214.251.25) 282.759 ms 280.749 ms 280.269 ms 25 During.the.battle (206.214.251.30) 301.951 ms 300.714 ms 297.183 ms 26 Rebel.spies.managed (206.214.251.33) 306.370 ms * * 27 * to.steal.secret.plans (206.214.251.38) 304.887 ms 301.879 ms 28 to.the.Empires.ultimate.weapon (206.214.251.41) 292.549 ms 290.469 ms 291.832 ms 29 the.DEATH.STAR (206.214.251.46) 290.021 ms 281.892 ms 280.153 ms 30 an.armored.space.station (206.214.251.49) 283.677 ms 295.996 ms 285.008 ms [harish@phoenix ~]$

Good stuff, Episode IV.

]]>

I think the post sufficiently debunks the myths propagated by the white paper and I hope that the government will be bold enough to take into consideration and not brush it off.

Please do read that post - https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/d85ef79d-0582-4c59-992a-1e8ecbc22359/eedb54998c8619cc3613d4c30c85afd3 - it is worth your time.

How appropriate the headline is and the accompanying photo. I can’t find where this appeared and would appreciate all help to find it – I want to give credit where it is due.

It is not surprising at all that the parliament rubber-stamped the Population White Paper.

We have a total of 99 MPs in the Parliament. Doing the math:

• Nominated Members of Parliament: 9
• Non Constituency Members of Parliament: 3 (2 from WP, 1 from SPP)
• Elected Members: 87 of which 7 are from the Worker’s Party and 80 from the People’s Action Party

So, if there were 77 yes (all PAP rubber stampers), who were the 3 from the PAP who did not vote?

Why is the Parliament website not updated immediately (and no live webcast of parliamentary proceedings as well – maybe the fiber link is not ready )? I want to know the voting record of all MPs. Am I asking for something hard to get?

The votes were 77 for (all PAP MPs), 13 against (7 WP MPs, 2 WP NCMPs, 1 SPP NCMP, 3 NMPs), 1 NMP abstaining bringing it to 91 which means we have 8 who did not turn up in parliament and so did not vote. The 8 would be 5 NMPs and 3 PAP MPs.

My guess is that the 3 PAP MPs who did not vote are Inderjit Singh (and I can’t tell for sure), LKY and one other. If it was indeed Inderjit who did not vote, then I am very, very disappointed. For all the passion he showed in his speech – which I happily carried on my blog, it would most unfortunate if he did not actually vote. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if he did show up and voted YES because while he could have been given the freedom to make the statements he made, he would have been told that the party whip will be enforced, thereby forcing him to vote along party lines. So much for standing up to your convictions and that of your constituents.

I am guessing that LKY was absent as well. I am told that he is in hospital and has been there for a while now; and the local MSM has been embargoing the news. Probably explains why he did not show up at all at the Punggol East by-elections.

All things considered, so long as there is the existence of a party whip, the parliament cannot be a democracy and I was under that illusion all along. 

Please, Clerk of Parliament, update your website immediately. This is 2013 already. An informed citizenry is a valuable asset and don’t squander that.

Update, February 9 2013 0948 hrs: According to the following tweet from Inderjit (via MrBrown), he did not vote. Not voting generally means being absent from the parliament. That’s a clever move as he will not be sanctioned by the PAP whip if he voted against and not by Singaporeans if he did. But, frankly, Mr Singh, this is a cop out. Not sure why you did not vote, Mr Singh, but I hope you will be able to stand up to your convictions and be able to look back to this without regrets. As Russell Peters says, “be a man”.

Mr Singh, since I can’t find your speech anywhere else outside a walled garden, I hope you don’t mind me including it here as posted to your Facebook page.

Speech by Mr Inderjit Singh, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC

On the White Paper on Population

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the White Paper on Population.

While the report has some compelling arguments for the 6.9m population figure projected, we all know it is based mainly on economic considerations. Had we focused on things like building a cohesive nation with a strong national identity, the outcome would likely be very different.

I feel the time has come for us to find a better balance between economic growth and social cohesion and yes there will have to be tradeoffs of economic growth but I would rather trade some of these for a cohesive, united nation where people feel taken care of at home and are confident of their future. I am not saying we go for low or no growth. Instead I am willing to adjust my growth expectations for a more comfortable life for all Singaporeans. I am confident we will still be able to pursue respectable economic growth when companies and Singaporeans are faced with a situation of tightened labour availability by focusing on improving ourselves through productivity and higher value capabilities. Finland and other small nations have done, we can do it too.

Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we take the next step. I call on the government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home. So I call for a breather in this quest of growing the population and focus on improving the lives of Singaporeans and achieve that promised Swiss Standard of living for most Singaporeans first before we plan our next growth trajectory.

Taking Care of the Singaporean Core
I have a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens we are planning to add to our population. I don’t see the necessity to be as aggressive when the key consideration of the population growth is the economy. We have already added too many new citizens and PRs and need time for integration and social cohesion to happen. Looking at history, our population grew from around 2.4m in 1980 to 3m in 1990 and then to 4m in 2000, reaching 5.3m last year. Just looking at the resident population alone, we grew the numbers from 2.3m in 1980 to 2.7m in 1990, 3.3m in the year 2000 and then to 3.8m last year. So in the last decade we added more than 1m to the resident population, and the in last 25 years, which is close to 1 generation of Singaporeans, we have added another close to 50% more to our resident population. I believe this must be the fastest rate of population growth in the world and I feel this is just too much for us to comfortably go back and build a national identity and social cohesion which was progressing very well till the 1990s. Adding another 500,000 to 800,000 more PRs and citizens as proposed by the white paper will be disastrous and add to our already difficult infrastructure and social problems.

If it is economic growth we want then let’s just adopt the Dubai model of a transient workforce which will give us a lot more flexibility to manage numbers in the longer term. On PRs, today we already have too many of them and they are enjoying full citizen privileges without the citizens’ responsibilities. For example;
- Far too many PR boys who skip NS when they turn 18. After enjoying the privileges they have a choice of not doing NS and then leave the country. I believe only around 30% of all PR boys do NS today. Well, our Singapore sons don’t have a choice but to do NS, it is an offence not to do it.
- PR children study at their International system schools sticking to their home cultures.
- PRs can buy HDB flats from the open market driving prices of HDB flats too high.

So I urge the government to reduce the number of projected new PRs and citizens just to the population replacement levels and be more selective and differentiate their privileges from citizens. I have a few suggestions for the government to consider;

• The government in the past couple of years has tried to draw the distinction between PRs and citizens by increasing school fees and healthcare fees for them. But I wonder would it not have been better to instead partially subsidize these same fees for Singapore citizens? So do it the other way round, reduce fees for Singaporeans not just increase for PRs.

• PR children must be made do national service – it should no longer be a choice and we should make it an offence if they don’t do it. We should not grant PRs to families who don’t commit their sons to National Service.

• HDB – if a PR buys a HDB flat from the open market, charge a levy of say $50k and allow them to sell only to Singaporeans. If the PR takes up citizenship within 5 years, we can refund the levy.

• Children of PRs should be made to study in our national schools so that we increase the chance of integrating them at the next generation.

• On the employment front, it is time we implement a Singaporean first hiring policy like what is done in some developed countries like Canada. Companies should show proof first that they were not able to fill a position with a Singaporean before they are allowed to hire a foreigner.

• Reconsider the dependents policy – I have come across a number of cases where our targeted one child from China brings in 2 parents who then bring 2 parents each as their dependents – Net is that we gain one young one child who we brought in for our future but also inherited 6 older people – making our ageing population issue worse not better.

I feel the differentiated privileges will separate the genuine ones from those who are here for a ride. We should grant PRs to those who are most likely going to take up citizenships so these differentiated privileges should not stifle our plans to attract quality PRs and new citizens.

This brings me to the point of how many Singaporeans are feeling about the presence of such huge numbers of new citizens, PRs and foreigners amongst our midst. First for housing – there is no doubt that the influx of foreigners in Singapore has driven up our property prices. PRs are buying HDB flats from the open market which drives up prices.

Just last week I had a dialogue session with my private estates residents and one of my residents complained that a new citizens recently bought a landed property in this old estate and was building a 3 and a half storey towering house. Well the, new citizen, the owner of the house was also present and when, I spoke with him during the tea session I found out that he was a new citizen formerly from China, just gained his citizenship and bought not 1 but 3 landed properties in Kebun Baru alone. I was surprised and saddened because many Singaporeans cannot afford to do the same, and this new citizen, no matter how he may have made his wealth is able to do so.

Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce feel demoralized because many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans. I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years I could afford a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns $2600, just $700 more than what I earned when I started. The mathematics is very simple, the cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum the last 27 years and even more, the cost of owning a HDB flat is did not just go up by 37% since 1985.

Finally, I am perturbed by the banquet analogy used by Minister Khaw. We are talking about lives of Singaporeans. Our banquet guests come for one night and leave when the function is over. There is no turning back when we grant PR and citizenships. We must be more exact about the numbers we want to add to the Singapore population and not plan on a basis of ‘hoping we hit some number”. Because if overdo things and end up with a population of more than 7m, it may be too late to stop the fast moving train of population growth when we fire up all the engines of growing the population. We missed the mark the last 10 years, and are already paying a high price for that mistake.

In my speech in this house in 2008 during the committee of supply debate on the population I urged the government to abandon the “the instant tree mentality” in trying to grow the population in response to the declining birth rates. At that time, I did not agree with the rate of growth pursued and we know the consequences and the hardship Singaporeans faced as a result of the rapid growth, Instant trees cannot grow strong roots and can be uprooted in difficult times. I once again urge the government to slow down and plan on reaching their population target over a longer time horizon. I don’t think we can live with a 6.9m population in 2030. We may be able to handle it in 2050, no one really knows. Please abandon this ‘instant tree” mentality as we cannot afford to make Singaporeans lives more difficult as a result. I rather we err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for planning misjudgements.

In Conclusion, I would like to see us take a breather from re-growing our population again. We have too many problems as a result of the last breath taking population growth rate. As a government we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us and that we are willing take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems, make their lives more comfortable, give them a better quality of life and show them that any future growth of population will not create similar social and cost of living problems. At this stage many Singaporeans from all walks of life don’t have the confidence that we can handle another steep growth of the population, so let’s not push it. I would like all of us, including the government to spend the time creating and environment that gives us confidence in our future and one where our young can see a sense of hope of opportunity and if we fail to instil a sense of hope and opportunity for our future generations, we will not be able to root them here and build a strong national identity and a strong nation. This is what building a strong Singapore core should entail. So let’s delay all plans for further population growth for now.