Lee Kuan Yew reconsiders population

Living, as I do, in Singapore, I was rather relieved to learn that Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's Minister Mentor (an advisory leader), has stated that he now believes that Singapore should not have a population of 6.5 million, but that one of 5 to 5.5 million would be optimum.

He is quoted in the papers as saying: "I have not quite been sold on the idea that we should have 6.5 million. I think there's an optimum size for the land that we have to preserve the open spaces and the sense of comfort".

He went onto say that he wouldn't like to see Singapore turn into another Hong Kong, with its towers, one after the other, each blocking out the other's light. He indicated that he thought Hong Kong's 7 million population was an undesirable number.

I don't know if Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is aware of it, but Singapore's population density is already rather high, even compared to Hong Kong's.

A quick search of Wikipedia, brings up the following figures from the United Nations World Populations Prospects Report (2004 revision), with estimates calculated for July 2005. In that data set, Hong Kong is listed as the 3rd most dense place on Earth at a population density of 6,407 people per sq. km. "Wow...that's high!", you might think. But where is Singapore on this United Nation list? Fourth place. Singapore comes in at 6,369 people per sq. km for these figures. So, you might think that Singapore's population density is high - indeed very similar to Hong Kong's - but not quite there yet. However, Singapore's population has risen since these figures were gathered - and guess what? Hong Kong's population has declined, a little.

Recalculating for the new population of Singapore which Lee Kuan Yew said was 4.8 million a couple of days ago, gives a population density for Singapore, as of now, of 6,823 people per sq. km. This is 6.5 % MORE dense than Hong Kong at its population peak. How about now, though?

Well, Hong Kong's population has declined from 7.04 million in 2004, to 6.98 million for the latest figures in July 2007. That means Hong Kong's population density is now 6,351 people per sq. km. That means that Singapore's population density is presently 7.43% greater than Hong Kong's. No wonder it was beginning to feel crowded.

What this means is that Singapore is now the 3rd most densely populated nation on Earth. Hong Kong has slid to fourth position.

Let us look forward. The projected population (now) by Lee Kuan Yew, of 5.5 million would represent a density of 7,812.5 people per sq km. That is a full 23 % more dense than Hong Kong is presently.

What about the fabled 6.5 million population projection tabled last year? Well, that would give a population density of 9,233 people per sq. km. That is a population density of 45.4 % more dense than Hong Kong - basically half as dense again.

These figures are sobering to read. Anyone of imagination can understand what they mean for the quality of life for Singaporeans. Yet, it is good to hear that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is re-evaluating the situation himself. He is, perhaps, listening to how people feel about it. Perhaps he is imagining the situation himself. Yes, by all means have a growing economy - but one must also consider the quality of life for every Singaporean and foreigner who lives and works here. If that quality of life becomes too low - they will simply leave, Singaporean and foreigner alike.

Personally, I have never visited Hong Kong. However, I have seen many pictures of its crowds - and my family have visited - so I hear that its crowdedness is hardly enviable. How much less enviable would Singapore be at 23 % more dense, or even 45.4 %? It would be a very different city - and probably an utterly unlivable one. It would be difficult to put that many people on these 704 sq kms of a city state and still afford them all a decent life.

I am relieved that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself is re-addressing these issues. There is hope, from what he is saying, that moderation in population growth might be a new aim.

It should be - for Singapore is already too crowded - and getting more so every day. Let us, indeed, as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew says himself, not be as over-populated as Hong Kong. If that is to be so, however, we would, in fact, have to reduce the population hence forth. For Hong Kong is already taking the lead in becoming a less dense, more livable city, than Singapore. Let's follow her down (in population) shall we?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Does Singapore have enough schools?

As everyone knows Singapore's population is growing. It is growing by policy. Each year more and more foreigners are enticed to come to work here. Some settle down. Some take Permanent Residency (PR status), others become citizens, but most, however, do not and are content just to work (then leave when they find somewhere else to go to, that offers more).

Perhaps this is part of the answer to a problem I have noted. You see, Singapore doesn't seem to have enough schools for the children it has. This can't be because Singaporeans are having too many children - for, in the main, Singaporeans are reluctant to have any children at all, with the Total Fertility Rate floating around 1.2 or so. This is one of the lowest in the world (exact figures available, but not to me, today, at this minute). So, perhaps, many of the children here are imported, with the foreign talent who come here to work.

Now, why do I say that Singapore doesn't seem to have enough schools? Well, it is a simple deduction from a local practice that has puzzled me from the moment I first heard of it. Many schools here operate two sessions. That is a morning session starting at some ungodly hour (7.30 am, for instance) and an afternoon session at 1 pm or so. I was startled when I first encountered this phenomenon, because I have never heard of another country doing this. When I grew up in London, everyone went to a school that had only a single session - starting at about 9 am (or 9.15/9.30 depending on school). There was no such thing as a two session school.

Why would a school need two sessions? Well, logic leads us to conclude that it can only be because there are not enough schools or school classrooms and attendant teachers, to teach all of the students in one session. If there were enough schools, there would be no need for two sessions. So, the existence of two sessions is proof that the number of schools is insufficient.

As always, I have a reason for addressing an issue. The existence of two sessions presents a problem that I have never seen before, in any other country. Quite simply, the morning session starts far too early for the children who have to endure it. This morning, my son Ainan, started back to school. To get there, he had to get up at about 5.30 am in time for a bus at around 6.20 am. This strikes me as much too early for a young boy to be going to school. There is such a thing as sleep and I rather think that it is more important than breaking world championships in "Earliest School Day", events.

All nations have to provide the educational infrastructure for their youngest citizens. Yet, there are various ways to achieve this. Singapore had a choice between building enough schools - or building insufficient schools and using them twice, in the same day, to make up for it. Singapore has clearly chosen the latter option. No doubt, this must have seemed an eminently efficient use of resources, since then they can build half the number of schools, yet still find space (at different times) for all the students.

This may seem to work just fine. However, it has one important consequence: grotesquely early school starts for half the nation's kids. I find this worrisome. There are likely to be health impacts of waking up half a nation's children so early, for school. Then, of course, there are also the social effects on the family, of having to prepare a child for school while even the sun has yet to rise.

Ever am I reminded that Singapore is not as the nation of my birth was. Things are done differently here. While I understand that the decision to have insufficient schools would have been made for economic reasons, so as to save on investment in infrastructure, this does have serious consequences for the nation's children. Which is more valuable: saving money, or saving the health and happiness of the children?

I know which I would choose.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)