Straits Times Forum 11 Oct 12;
IT SEEMS counter-intuitive for a very small island state to rely on population increase as a strategy for survival ("Population 6m: Is there room?"; last Saturday).
If indeed this increase is required to support our ageing population, wouldn't that generation itself grow old in the future, thus needing a bigger population to sustain it?
Aren't we merely passing the buck to later generations?
How did the official narrative change from the "procreate sustainably" family planning campaign to this "procreate or go bust" mentality, both in the name of survival? Perhaps that is where the answer lies.
It was for the sake of survival that the population was allowed to balloon even while the family planning exercise was taking place in the 1970s, ostensibly to address the declining total fertility rate.
In reality, the population increase, aided by immigration, was more likely to meet manpower shortages and was needed to capitalise on the prevailing economic opportunities in the 1970s and 80s.
That was the only way we knew how to survive.
We bit the bullet, took the chance and came out rich.
In the meantime, earlier concerns about sustainability took a back seat.
The question now is whether the formula will still work now, given that the population has tripled while the island can hardly be doubled.
Arguably, we have the technology and know-how to pack in six million people. But what would that do to our humanity?
We miss the big picture when we fail to notice that we have become a population that is refusing to reproduce - contrary to human instinct.
We must be coaxed, rewarded and penalised to procreate, which, in itself, is a signal that we are not comfortable with the current population density.
Instead of presuming that the population must increase to sustain the economy, can we also consider alternative economic models that suit a lower, more comfortable population density?
Osman Sidek
Better off with a smaller population
Straits Times Forum 20 Oct 12;
MR OSMAN Sidek has touched on a very important point ("Consider settling for a smaller number"; Oct 11).
He suggested that if we have to rely on population increase as a strategy for survival, wouldn't we need ever more young people in the next generation to support the elderly? How can this be ecologically sustainable?
The costs that we will have to bear from a rising population would be higher property costs, smaller homes, longer commutes, road and transport congestion, and the loss of green spaces.
We may also face increasing pressure on resources ranging from energy supply to food and water.
A decline in the population tends to conjure up visions of devastated communities and decrepit seniors with no young people to replenish and support them.
This may be true if the population decline were rapid. But a gradual population decline will be a different matter.
The environmental benefits that are associated with a gradual population decline are obvious - fewer cars, more green space, a smaller carbon footprint.
It could also empower workers, raise the status of the socially marginalised and reduce inequality.
A declining workforce puts those who work in a far stronger position. For those who are marginalised in the workforce, it can have a very dramatic effect. Companies will need to train the unskilled, provide family-friendly policies to retain women and to entice the elderly to stay on, rather than force them out.
True sustainability means providing every person alive as well as the future generation with a reasonable standard of living, which can be maintained in the foreseeable future.
While the political leaders seem to be afraid of a decline in population, I think we are better off with fewer people.
Tham Su-yin (Ms)
