04 September 2008

My brilliant solution for Singapore's demographic future

Guest writer Pan Hong-En had an Eureka moment. Here he describes, tongue-in-cheek, what he believes can be a solution to our baby shortage woes. Guest essay.

14 comments:

The said...

/// Given our penchant for acronyms, I suggest: NEST - Next Evolution in Singapore Training. ///

I think a better and more appropriate name for this project is - Fostering Unwanted Confused Kids.

dio said...

The best part: obtaining children by non-organic means (i.e. doing away with the need for a Singapore-based male and female couple to spawn) means that the gahmen's obsession with promoting the nuclear family -- headed by a heterosexual couple as defined by it -- will flag.

This could possibly mean increased freedom and acceptance for homosexual Singaporeans, whom I suspect are given the second-class treatment by the gahmen not because of any "conservative" element of society it has to protect, but simply because homosexual couples can't organically contribute to the birth rate.

Anonymous said...

aah, but you have not taken into account LKY's obsession with genetics and the spread of good genes.

taking up kids from other countries doesnt guarantee we get kids with good genes.

unless, the kids go through some form of genetic filtering..only genetically perfect babies can come in.

Anonymous said...

Alex: A brilliant solution indeed and the Government should seriously consider this.

TAN, Switzerland said...

By the way PAP works, these 2-year olds will undergo GCE entrance exams, and pyschological tests before being subjected to an-al probes and medical checks to ensure they qualify for NS.

They will also be bonded for 25 years, otherwise their biological parents will be assassinated back in Africa.

They will also be brain-scanned and brainwashed into thinking they were born at KK hospital and their skin colour is not dark black, but strong yellow.

They will speak Singlish, Chindian and drink Starbucks and eat Pratas.

But then again,
I seriously think you got a good if not "f-u-ck-ing good" idea!

Well done!
the garment would do well to check your blog for ideas!
wah.

Yawning Bread Sampler said...

Anonymous 18:40, and Tan -

You realise, I hope, that this wasn't written by me, the site owner, but by a guest contributor.

Anonymous said...

Most Singaporeans can't even tolerate the presence of foreign talent and you would expect them to embrace these children who will be growing up on our tax?
If there is really such a plan and by the way this government overdo things, expect a civil war when these poor kids grow up.

Yuri said...

I don't think many will be able to put away their racial prejudices and adopt someone elses' children. Not least if the child's from another country, another skin colour, especially someone whom they consider far below themselves in terms of "status and education".

That said, ROFL! Nice article, there. :P

bOb™ said...

this is like swift's a modest proposal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal

khirsah said...

No, I don't think this will work. It simply does not make economical sense. We have to invest about 20 years per child before we can see the results. It is still easier (and cheaper) to import foreign talents.

Look at it this way, if it takes $X to groom a child for 20 years with no guarantee that we will maximize returns (or even get any at all). Wouldn't it be easier that we set aside say $X/2 (called engagement bonus) for any FT who has already proven himself/herself and ready to be productive the moment they cleared the customs?

P/S the above was written by the pragmatic-GDP-focused-and-utterly
-devoid-of-humanity me.

roxy said...

khirsah: it might not make economic sense from a certain narrow perspective, but if you take the broader picture, the main worry of the government is that there will not be enough young stayers (not only born in singapore but willing to stay on in singapore) to take care of the old stayers.

while plying an ft with money might work short-term, it is unlikely that someone so easily swayed by money will be willing to stay on when times are bad (either when singapore goes thru bad economic times or when ft's son has to go to ns, etc).

whereas (as the original post points out) a child who has been given a first-class education from young, who has been brought up in singapore and who knows he or she has been given a chance by singapore where his/her original country did not, would be more likely to be loyal and to teach any future children to be loyal too. hence, making more economic sense from the long run as the investment yields long-term results.

ps: also written by a pragmatic singaporean, but with a little more insight into the heart ;)

KiWeTO said...

20 years growing up in Singapore?

12 years of school?

20 years of cultural indoctrination?

why, wouldn't they be Singaporeans?
(but losing their former identities)


Reminds me of the ill-devised Aborigine "Stolen children" plan, where to "improve their society", young aborigine children in australia were forcibly taken away and made ot live with new white parents.
Wiki entry : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation


;-)

then again, this is Singapore. Morals sensibilities are far far behind economic growth targets.

E.o.M.

khirsah said...

roxy: Don't get me wrong there.I was just being a bit notti. I too, believe in matters of the heart more than dollars and cents. ;)

yj said...

But why would this plan be immoral?

If someone proposes setting up an orphanage for unwanted children from less developed countries for humanitarian reasons, would you say that this plan is immoral?

That is precisely what the guest contributor has suggested. The fact that he has framed it in a way that emphasises the economic benefits to Singapore doesn't in any way lessen the good we will be doing to these children.

We might chafe at our political system, but I'm sure that those children would rather live under such a system than die of starvation or toxoplasmosis at the age of 10 or so.

The fact that a proposed policy/ project has (unclear) economic benefits does not in any way lessen the humanitarian good it can do.