Lincoln

   It's been quite some time since the wifey and I last caught a movie at the cinema. By some stroke of  divine appointment, we decided to do "something crazy" last Sat. Thus we found ourselves in the cinema at midnight waiting for the latest political drama - Lincoln.

   This is the sort of movie that you either love or hate totally. The cinema was full when the show began but there was at least one empty row when it ended. If political intrigue is not your "thing", you would best stay away. Fortunately, being the former political science students that we are, we enjoyed it tremendously. You would enjoy it too if you're into courtroom drama. 

Get it?

   "Lincoln" goes behind the scenes of American politics during the Civil War. It portrays a Republican US President determined to give legal teeth to the Emancipation Declaration by passing the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution through the House of Representatives. All along I thought that proclaiming freedom to slaves was enough; apparently this was not so.

   The movie clearly depicts the horse trading and shady back-room deals needed to get Democrats to vote for the Amendment. It brings to mind the reality that politics is never clean. It even some times borders on the immoral and the telling of lies. It also emphasizes the great role that civil servants play in shaping the effectiveness of policy. As the wifey pointed out, a good civil servant is one who provides solutions instead of simply taking orders (this coming from a top civil servant herself).

Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens (Leader of the Radical Republican Faction) in my favorite name-calling scene of all time.

   You'd be disappointed if you expect lots of action. The movie derives it's entertainment value from the clever power plays. There is also no lack of moments of nail-biting suspense. I quite enjoyed the comic scenes where law-makers started calling each other names. One which got me really guffawing (to the wifey's chargrin) was the scene where the whole House got into an uproar at the suggestion that women would one day be allowed to vote.

   "Lincoln" really helped me to understand why he is held in such high esteem. Having been to Washington, it all now makes sense. Daniel Day-Lewis truly deserves his Oscar as the leading character. This is one show that you must not miss if you are into history, politics or if you are a fan of understanding the human condition - moral struggles and all. There is a reason why this movie was nominated for 12 Academy Awards.One note of caution though; don't forget to bring along your brain.

Office with a View

First of many...

   CNY Yu Sheng. More to come.

With the in-laws

Further Rantings...

   I was quite satisfied with the government response that the 6.9 million population figure is just a guideline and not a target... until today. It's the second day of Chinese New Year and  we got up to a late start. Breakfast at 11am at the nearby shopping mall. What greeted us were long queues of people and crowded eating places. what made matters worse was the pervasiveness of "foreign accents".

   Looking at the queues of people at all the eateries, it dawn on me that to accommodate an increased population is not a simple matter of providing more housing and expanding the transport network. The lack of space on this small island also takes a toll on the social and mental well-being of its citizens.

   Why do I say this? The wifey asked an elderly couple if we could share their table (there were 3 empty seats). They acceded, but in a very abrupt and cold manner. I don't blame them for their impatience. Having to wait  in line just to have your order taken, probably having to wait again for an empty table and finally when you have your own space, this couple comes up and asks to share. I would be pretty annoyed too.

   What I'm saying is that Singapore doesn't have to reach a population of 6.9 million to feel the effects of overcrowding. The situation will NOT improve because we have a better transport system or more (albeit smaller) HDB flats. Human-to-human interaction takes a beating. Civility takes a beating. The question is not whether we can tolerate a Singapore of 6.9 million people. Even if the infrastructure permits, do we want a Singapore where courtesy and kindness take a backseat? Look how "successful" the courtesy movement has been. The stress of an increased population will take its toll on the societal fabric of the people here. Especially if an increasing number do not speak or behave as we do. Is this the Singapore we want for ourselves and our children? 

Empty Promises?

   I was taken aback when the government announced plans for Singapore's population to reach 6.9 million by 2030. The argument has always been that because of the ageing population and low birthrate, Singapore has to increase it's population to remain economically viable. Simply put, "Singapore cannot survive if the population doesn't grow".

   I trust that the government truly believes that this is the way to go. I'm sure they have done their homework before coming up with these "necessary" projections. However, I must point out that the need for population increase is simply that - a projection. The following are some points I would like the government to address:

1) Is planning based on the "worst case scenario"? While it is good to plan for the worst that may happen, it usually never does. If such planning results in other uncomfortable sacrifices, perhaps we should be a little more optimistic. Which brings me to my second point.

2) Can Singapore still survive without being the best in the world? Yes, we may lose some of our international clout and influence. We may become less competitive on the global stage. But I believe we can still survive as a nation with a reasonable standard of living. I wouldn't mind giving up some competitive edge if my quality of life doesn't drop too much. Call me naive but I believe I'll have a better quality of life if I don't have to compete so much for air and space with my fellow Singaporeans and foreigners. 

3) GDP has always been the measure used to justify population growth. GDP doesn't take into account quality of life, effects on the environment and depreciation of natural resources (which, we have very little to start with). It is ludicrous of the government to assure us of a "good quality of life" when statistical models do not consider this when deriving the projections for "necessary" population growth.

4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the increase in population in the past few years resulted in a lowering of quality of life. Check out the crowds in town on a weekend; even far-flung Changi City Point is crowded. Those who drive can attest the fact our roads are increasingly congested. I'm sure local data would show that the incidence of accidents have gone up too. The size of HDB flats have shrunk and officials have to resort to comparing us to other countries with limited space. Quality of life should be an absolute calculation and not a relative measure.

5) Not only has quality of life gone done, cost of living has increased as well. This makes for a "double whammy". Those with means will move overseas where they do not have to tolerate the crowds. Most of the time these people are the very ones we should be keeping. I dread the day when the government announces the need to import even more "foreign talent" because of local brain drain.

6) DPM Teo Chee Hean mentioned recently that the government is looking for "high-quality, productivity-driven growth". It is a fact that Singapore would do well to increase its productivity. Increased productivity means that one worker can now do the job of more than one person. This also means that less workers are needed to complete the job. Doesn't it seem ironic that Singapore requires both increased productivity and an increase in population? Moreover, as recent job data has shown, curbing the influx of foreigners has resulted in an increase in Singaporeans being employed. This shows that we are not in such desperate need of bringing in people to increase our population.

7) Population growth is not sustainable in the long term. How many more Bidadaris can we convert into housing estates? Will the future Singapore be deprived of it's forests and nature reserves? Will such a Singapore be worth striving for? Population increase is simply a temporary stop-gap measure that frustrates everyone. Why not get to the root of the problem? Is there no other option? Sometimes it seems that members of the government suffer either from group-think or the fear of being radical.

   In conclusion, population growth is not sustainable. GDP is not a good measure to justify increase in population. There is no way that the government can assure us that we will have quality of life if the population and cost of living continue to grow. What we need is a paradigm shift. Singaporeans cannot expect to remain "number one in the world". If we want a more "livable" Singapore for ourselves and our children, something has to give. It is now time for all of us to find that balance.

You may also want to check out an article by Joseph Chamie, the former Director of the United Nations Population Division, on how population growth is actually a Ponzi scheme: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321