Michael Cook is of course a full time propagandist for opus dei, and the Mercator websight is a propaganda vehicle for opus dei which, along with other right wing "traditionalist" outfits now controls the political and cultural agendas of the "catholic" church.

http://www.odan.org

Singapore is hardly going extinct. The locals are simply reacting to the fact that the place is massively overcrowded. Just try and buy a car in Singapore, its only for the rich.

This sounds to me like more Catholic spin, to encourge people to keep breeding like rabbits. We know what happens when they do. Just go and ask those poor souls living on the Manilla rubbish tip etc.

I have to question the assumption that the population of Singapore is somehow ceasing to be. While this may be the view of Lee Kwan Yew, it is plain to those who do not share his chauvinist and racist views that the population of Singapore is merely changing in composition.

Were the government prepared to allow the thousands of workers who travel daily to work across the Malay Straits to actually live in Singapore, or to stop discouraging Singaporean nationals from pursuing relationships with non-Singaporeans, the birthrate might also look rather different, and healthier.

About the only good think you can say about this silly article is that it was not written by Malcolm King.

Pretty much standard 'play the man' opening comments from the Adelaide Hills NIMBY fringe dwellers. I too doubt Singapore is facing extinction but at 1.1 births it has a major problem. It's the same problem that faces many western nations - falling birth rates and ageing population.

The anti-people lobby want to cut Australia's population - which is slowing down rapidly - by cutting immigration (race card), erecting tariff walls (Menzies solution) and Canute like, roll back the forces of globalisation. It's no wonder Dick Smith can't get his political advertising placed in News Ltd newspapers.

This article is nonsense. Singapore was a fine place when the population was 2 million, not long ago. If the population reduced to 2 million again, that wouldn't be a tragedy for Singapore. The tragedy is for the young Singaporeans at present who would like to have families, but, because of the Government's fetish re population growth, can't afford to find somewhere to live.

Meanwhile, of course, the country wouldn't go extinct - the birth rate would recover if the population reduced and it became affordable.

One may well wonder where this fertility rate figure comes from, or what it actually means. The Singapore government quotes a rate of 1.20, see http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html#birth

Wikipedia (whose source is given but is a broken link) quotes 1.1
(in 2010), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore (near end of first para)

Japan has been facing this problem for quite a while. The answer is immigration. There are plenty of Iraqis, Afghans, Tamils and others who would love to live in Singapore.

Given that the population of China in 2011 is given by Wikipedia as 1,344,130,000, I can't see that Singapore (5,183,700) is going to have any difficulty maintaining a supply of new citizens -- quite the reverse, in fact.

Michael is of course one of the many head in the sand so called conservatives who erroneously think and advocate that the human population can keep on expanding for forever and a day - such is of course an ecological impossibility.

As proof of this please check out the new book by Callum Roberts titled Ocean of Life: How Seas Are Changing. The book was reviewed in the Review section of the Weekend Australian. Just reading the various reviews available on the internet is a real reality check (for the expanding for forever and a day boosters). The review ended with this quote from the book

"The world is living on borrowed time. We can't cheat nature by taking more than is produced indefinitely, no matter how fervently politicians or captains of industry may wish it (or christian fundamentals - added by me). Rich nations can outsource production to poor ones, but, at some point, fish stocks will collapse there too and then there will be no fish to be had at anyone price."

Meanwhile as an example of how dreadful the world-view, and thus the applied politics, that Mercator promotes, why not Google Salvo Magazine which links into Mercator. In my opinion the said magazine is one of the most benighted publications in the business - even more so because it pretends to be religious.

An object lesson in what happens when governments meddle in the personal lives of its citizens. One moment they say "spend, spend, it's good for the economy", the next it is "save, save, it's, um, good for the economy". One day it is "keep it in your pants, we're overcrowded", the next it is "One each, and one for Lee Kuan Yew". For a while it its "borrow your heart out, grow the economy", the next it is "savings are good, it keeps our net debt under control". The only consistent theme is that they haven't the faintest notion what the outcome of their exhortations will be.

Singapore won't "become extinct". Mr Lee's view of Singaporean-ness might take a hit - by the sound of it it already has - but he has for many years been happily exploiting the cheap foreign labour that enabled both partners to go out to work on the growth treadmill. What did he expect? Oh, that's right, he didn't bother to work that part out.

If only politicians didn't believe they can play god all the time, and simply let people get on with it.

What can I say, good on Singapore for leading the way. I am not sure why having immigrants is seen as a problem. Most immigrants come because they want the lifestyle of the country they are coming to.

Of course there are those that seek to change the society they move to but then so do many local born, as long as that debate is open and healthy then that's also a good thing as the only constant is change itself.

The author seems to be saying slowing population growth is a bad thing, what does he suggest when there are 30, 40, 50, 100 Billion people on the Planet ?

< The government is trying desperately to boost the birth rate with generous benefits, dating services and louche advertisements. And still the birth rate falls. >

Oh for goodness sake! Don’t they know when they are on a good thing?

Singapore is VERY crowded. The people have chosen to have fewer kids, because they have other excellent life choices. Life is good there. Malcolm Cook and the silly government should be celebrating that!

It would be even better going into the future if the daft government didn’t import people or try to boost the birthrate, and actually just let the population decline for a decade or so. Then perhaps some very simple adjustment by way of immigration might be in order.

Pericles I love you - it is, as you say, 'become extinct'. Anyway, Singapore and Singaporeans are a very recent construct, there have always been many foreigners eager to work there, so there is really no population problem at all unless you are a racist. Leave them alone to breed or not, as they choose.

Who are these "originals" Lee is talking about? Chinese? I seriously doubt that the Malayan birth rate is in decline, their birthrate in Malaysia is about 21, the birthrate in China is about 12 and Singapore it's around 8.
There's a problem with the birthrate among North Asians:
http://quicktake.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/crisis-in-shanghai-with-birth-rate-lower-than-japan-is-china-lost/
If you want analysis of the gross side effects of globalisation and U.N policy refer to Third World commentators, silly White people have no right to even discuss the issue.
http://quicktake.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/why-does-south-have-so-many-divorcees/
http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/

Oh dear, Ludwig. Do I detect some double standards operating here?

>>The people have chosen to have fewer kids, because they have other excellent life choices. Life is good there.<<

In your view, exercising choice means only doing things that Ludwig approves of. What about people exercising their choice, to have lots of kids? Maybe just because they like 'em. Or because "life is good here"?

You also once again miss the snag inherent in your scenario where the population declines "for a decade or so". The economy will stagnate, the young folk will find the taxation burden intolerable and move elsewhere, and Mr Lee's concept of Singaporean society will implode.

Which is precisely what he is worried about.

I suspect that Singapore will eventually become a case-study for what happens to a closed society under a "benign dictatorship". As with any authoritarian regime, imbalances are created that can only be resolved with a generation or two of backlash against whatever it was that the regime stood for.

My abiding memory of the place was the daily government homily, poorly disguised as a full page-five op-ed in the Straits Times. Complete with vox pop "interviews". On subjects ranging from peeing in the lifts (bad) to queuing nicely on the brand new MRT stations (good). It would have been sad if it wasn't so consistently hilarious.

Singapore is a fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable city, even now that Chinatown has gone, Raffles has been emasculated and the original Bugis Street is no more. Yes, it is crowded. But that's 90% of the fun.

*Yes, it is crowded. But that's 90% of the fun.*

Fun for you rich ones perhaps, Pericles. Perhaps less fun for those
living in those little rat cages, row after row, peering out, just like Desmond Morris so aptly described it, a human zoo.

You could always try Dhaka or Bombay, if you like crowding.Not the
rich parts though....

Ahh, Pericles, you are waaay off track, as usual.

<< What about people exercising their choice, to have lots of kids? >>

Um, no problem, if only a small portion of the population is doing it, and the birthrate is not too high as to lead to crippling population growth problems.

So in Singapore; no problem at all. And no doubt some people do choose to have lots of kids.

That’s one real advantage of the good life; people having the choice to have none, one, two or perhaps twenty five kids!

<< You also once again miss the snag inherent in your scenario where the population declines "for a decade or so” >>
No dear Pericles, it is you who is looking straight past the bleeding obvious – the place is overcrowded now, so how can it be expected to maintain its great standard of living, and keep the gap between the rich and poor reasonably small if it is to continue packing em in, with no end in sight?

<< I suspect that Singapore will eventually become a case-study for what happens to a closed society under a "benign dictatorship". >>

I suspect that with its addiction to rapid population growth, Singapore will become a case study on what happens when a country or city doesn’t stabilise its population when it should do and just continues to grow itself into interminable decline.

Surely Lee Kuan Yew, being the brilliant person he is, can see this.

"Do we want to replace ourselves or do we want to shrink and get older and be replaced by migrants and work permit holders? That's the simple question."

That is the very question that Australia - and indeed, the entire Western world - faces. For while the globe's population is exploding, the European and European-descended peoples of the West are in demographic decline. In fact, not a single Western country has a birth rate that will enable it to replace its present population.

Some have suggested immigration as the solution to the West's aging population woes. Australian policymakers certainly seem to think that increased immigration can be used as a way to offset our aging population. However, the problem with immigration is that it doesn't replenish a country's population - it replaces it. It is not population maintenance, but rather the suicide and disappearance of a particular nation and its replacement by foreign nations.

Reminds me of the words of Arnold J. Toynbee: "Civilisations die from suicide, not by murder."

Drab,
You'll notice that the people who promote the genocide of White nations think it's all a big joke while the people who oppose mass Third World immigration into White countries take it very seriously.
Multinational societies don't work, India has multiple low level internal ethnic conflicts and great social unrest, so too Syria, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan the Balkan countries and
we're already seeing sectarian and racial conflict in Western Sydney.
Every race or ethnic group has it's strengths and weaknesses, using guilt over fictional "Racism" and emotional pressure about "Ageing Populations" on White people is like forcing alchohol on Aboriginals, some of them can't handle it and go off the deep end, dragging the rest of the community down with them.
White people don't want to take action to deal with the problem because these errant folk are family but at some point, just like every other ethnic group we will have to put group survival ahead of the needs of a toxic minority within our ranks.

Jay, you may find this article by Patrick Buchanan interesting:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/01/the-way-our-world-end/

"In 1950, whites were 28 percent of world population and Africans 9 percent, a ratio of three-to-one. In 2060, the ratio will remain the same. But the colors will be reversed. People of African ancestry will be 25 percent of the world's population. People of European descent will have fallen to 9.8 percent.

More arresting is that the white population is shrinking not only in relative but in real terms. Two hundred million white people, one in every six on earth—a number equal to the entire population of France, Britain, Holland and Germany—will vanish by 2060.

The European race is going the way of the Mohicans.

...

Hopefully, the peoples of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, who are about to inherit the earth as we pass away, will treat us better than our ancestors treated them in the five centuries that Western Man ruled the world.

Otherwise, we all go out with a bang."

Drab,
Yet we have no country of our own, not one, the Japanese have a country of their own, the Iranians have their own country, our toxic Anglo Saxon government sends men to kick the Pakistani Taliban out of Afghanistan at the same time as they "enrich" our countries with Pakistanis and Afghans.

The article on Sub-Saharan Africa gives a different slant on population growth.
" 15 of the 20 countries with the highest total fertility rates are to be found in the region. With an average of 4.9 children per woman the sub-Saharan African population is exploding. Increased numbers could wipe out economic gains"

If the world is going to survive, we must not accept 10 billion rising as the population goal.
We are one world, not nations outbreeding each other, or families which are 'generous' if they are large.

Thanks for reminding me, Ludwig. I had meant to respond, but got distracted.

>>...the place is overcrowded now, so how can it be expected to maintain its great standard of living, and keep the gap between the rich and poor reasonably small if it is to continue packing em in, with no end in sight?<<

My understanding is that the "extinction" that Mr Lee is concerned about is that of home-grown Singaporeans - code for "people like me" - not the nation-state itself. This is his real concern, and these are the words he uses to describe that concern:

"...this place will fold up, because there'll be no original citizens left to form the majority, and we cannot have new citizens, new PRs to settle our social ethos, our social spirit, our social norms."

I don't believe that the intent is to "keep packing them in". The warning he sounds is that Singaporeans should work to re-balance the population statistics in favour of "people-like-Mr Lee".

There are already enough economic dis-incentives to overcrowding, and it is these that will keep the overall population numbers under control. Unless, of course, the population is allowed to decline, in which case the disintegration could easily set in, very quickly. Those sufficiently well off will take their business elsewhere - China, possibly, or Australia - and the economy will begin to stagnate. Once that occurs, all the social safeguards will fail, one after the other, until the country reverts to its pre-Lee situation.

If, however, the economy continues to thrive, their only "problem" will be the one that Mr Lee perceives. The population will not grow in any unsustainable fashion, but the "ethnic mix" will change. That's all.

<< My understanding is that the "extinction" that Mr Lee is concerned about is that of home-grown Singaporeans - code for "people like me" - not the nation-state itself. >>

Pericles, it seems to be both, as I read it. Isn’t the article author suggesting that if < their country's future belongs to immigrants and workers from nearby China, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia >, Singapore may be facing the prospect of < cashing in its chips > ?

It doesn’t add up.

< About 35 percent of Singapore's workers are foreign-born and about 23 percent of all residents. >

So it has obviously had a pretty full-on immigration program for a long time. Are there any significant negative results of this in terms of Lee’s fears?

There don’t seem to be.

While his desire to keep Singapore under the control of real born and bred Singaporeans is understandable up to a point, I can’t see that this it is really that relevant to Singapore’s future.

And at any rate, how different are Chinese, Malaysian or Indonesian people from Singaporeans? And in what ways are they inferior or inherently likely to degrade Singapore’s quality of life or national status if they become residents there?

So if I were he, I'd appreciate the will of the people to have far less kids than they used to on average and make adjustments to the population via immigration. Simple really.

Incidentally, if anyone in Australia said that we should keep Australia for people like us – white Anglo Saxon original Australians (not original occupants of this continent, but the original race and culture of the country of Australia), they’d be immediately howled down as absolute racists!

You are right of course, Ludwig.

>>So if I were he, I'd appreciate the will of the people to have far less kids than they used to on average and make adjustments to the population via immigration. Simple really.<<

But that is exactly Mr Lee's concern. To "adjust the population by immigration" would require the topping-up process to include more non-Singaporeans. He clearly does not like this, and would prefer that "his" people make greater efforts to ensure this does not come to pass.

I was simply pointing out that your comment on Singapore's problem being that it is "overcrowded" was not at issue. As the author of the article points out:

"Today Singapore is a leading financial centre, is the world's easiest place to do business, is ranked number 8 in foreign exchange reserves, has the world's top-ranked education system, and is the world's least corrupt country. Economically Singapore is a miracle"

If indeed Singapore is by your measurement "overcrowded", then clearly a bit of "overcrowding" is patently not a bad thing

<< If indeed Singapore is by your measurement "overcrowded", then clearly a bit of "overcrowding" is patently not a bad thing >>

Oow hold on Pericles, I don’t you think we have enough information to make that judgement. Certainly not from that provided in the article.

Just because it is a great financial centre and top place to do business doesn’t necessarily mean that life is good for all, or that there isn’t a big gap between the rich and the poor, or that a considerable portion of the populace isn’t really doing too well. Or that overcrowding isn’t a big negative factor.

I don’t know about that sort of thing in Singapore. Do you?

Ahh fungus! Sheesh, do I HATE typos, especially after you spell- and grammar-check your post, read it and reread it and rererererererereread it.... and then post it………

……and come back some time later and read it on OLO and……….

Aaarrrgh… there’s a bloody immediately obvious absolutely stupid and totally impossible typo!! !!

Wouldn't matter if it was an occasional thing, but it happens sooooo damn often!!

.

.

.

So…. to restate the offending sentence in my last post….

Oow hold on Pericles, I don’t think we have enough information to make that judgement.

RrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRGGGHHHHH!! !! !! !! ):>{

(end of dummy spit)

Singapore's greatest threat is from its own imploding birth rate??

Sure RIGHT!

And a man drowning in a QLD flood is in danger of dying of thirst.

There are 75million live births on this planet every year and that rate of growth is INCREASING because of vested interest parties like this author MAKING it happen with every evil greed intent they can muster.

ITS TIME to say NO to profiteers from overpopulation.

Find another way to make money or PERISH amidst the squalor of your own mortality.