Economics Part 4: One Child Policy

Population.

More important than it looks.

Population is an important aspect of nation building and planning and not forgetting, economy. Economy, as we all know, is a complex factor where population indirectly plays a huge and vital part in. To illustrate this, between 1970s to 1980s, Singapore's two child policy was implemented. This was because Singapore had an unstable economy back then and needed a controlled population in Singapore. With the population taken under control, lesser social problems will rise and lesser people being unemployed so as to achieve a firm economy. But bear in mind that, with higher the population living in a country, the GDP per capita will still be low per capita even if it is factually high. This means that population takes on an extremely important role and so if Singapore had not implemented such a policy back then, people would be giving birth to as many children as they could and lead to a high TFR (Total Fertility Rate), resulting in a not so firm economy for then Singapore due to the low GDP obtained. Therefore, population is essential for the progress of a country. However, is it that necessary for a country?

In this insight, I will be touching on China and the existing and growing issue of the famous one child policy and the aging population. China, home to one of the biggest and largest population in the world, is no doubt facing various economic and social issues. Although the one child policy has been changed to two child, the problems rising from both the younger and older generation have been greatly affecting the working class. Indeed, the working class have to withstand the biggest burden of society, working to pay more for the older generations through different platforms like taxes in Singapore's context, given that the elders need more financial care and the injuries that they beamorer are normally long-term recovery. However, with that, more and more adults are choosing not to giving birth and this has led to the Chinese government changing the one-child policy. Therefore, from this paragraph, we can see that the population has internal problems and conflicts as well.

A longer life span but lesser babies being delivered every year. Good yet bad news at the same time. Now a question to have could be, "What has happened to the 21th century?" or "What has changed the mindsets of those now with those of the past?" Well, i think it is because of the escalating cost of living. To fathom this situation in depth and rationally, let us be in the perspective of an adult of a working class. I work almost everyday to earn enough income to support my family and carry out daily activities like buying household items from a supermarket occasionally. However, some percentage of my income is reserved to pay for taxes to fund the government to pay for more hospitals to cater to the needs of the ageing population. Hence, I need to work on a regular basis to survive in an ever rapid changing environment which means I would have a tight schedule and a busy life. Now, all  we will be mostly likely thinking will be WORK, and not ENTERTAINMENT. Other than that, the cost of raising a child is quite exorbitant, factors like education, and my income might not be able to allow me to afford such things for the child. Besides that, since it is a competitive education system, i need to provide him a holistic learning environment so that he can excel and become successful in life, getting a high pay job. As I continued to ponder over such things, it dawned on me that the working class in general is the one supporting and carrying the society forward and when they are in stress, it is expected that there is a growing population that is ageing and a dwindling population of babies.

Therefore, it is no doubt the issue of a longer life span of human but a decreasing population is happening now.

But, are policies really required for the betterment of society? 

            

Heritage Part 1: Preservation and Modernisation

So, to demolish or to preserve? 

For the sake of history or for the sake of space and other reasons? 

In this week's CID lesson, the class touched on final topic of CID before we headed off to Suzhou and Shanghai for our OELP trip. We got to reflect on the importance of heritage sites towards a city and from there, we felt that heritage sites were important in local and international terms. In local's perspective, heritage sites gave a sense of belonging and space, cultural identity to our country and were a great way to understand and reflect on the history behind those monuments. However, in tourist's perspective, the heritage sites were unique features representing the country's culture, making the country unique and that would appeal to me in general. As we gained deeper insights of the importance of having heritage sites, I soon realised the tension between modernisation and preservation and the ways to make full use of preserved heritage without destroying any bits of it. To illustrate such concept, in Singapore's context, this can be represented by the things we are able to enjoy and see everyday. The playground, a strong and fond memory of many Singaporeans when they were a child, is a great example of modernisation and preservation. In the past, the ground of the playground used to be full of sand, however, it has been changed to foam for hygiene and safety purposes. This example got me thinking. In the 21st century, the society is rapidly advancing and changing so much that we have so much trouble catching up and so what are the relevance and cost effectiveness of heritage sites? Do we really have time and space to appreciate heritage and history?   

As we continued on with the lesson, we found ourselves in the debate that was still in question. Should we demolish or preserve Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at Oxley Road? To discern on this hot topic of debate a few years back, the perspective of various stakeholders were needed to fathom the conflicting factors towards the debate. People taken in account ranged from LKY family to the URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority) As I stepped into the shoes of the neighbours living near the house, I found myself in a dilemma, interpreting the house in various context, along with the Singaporean children and adults. As much as I wanted to preserve the house as history of one of the founding fathers of Singapore, the house's demolish would allow the land value to escalate as the HDB flats around it no longer need to not hover over LKY's house. So the big question still remains. To keep or to remove?
   
Personally, I feel that the house should be demolished. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a simple and humble national leader, had said in an interview that the house was to be demolished as part of his last will. So, as Singaporeans, it is only right that we pay due respect to this incredible leader that helped change the fate of Singapore, from a third world country to a first world country that we live and enjoy today. It is of his selfless contributions to the nation and the number of sacrifices done that we can live in this metropolis in comfort and in harmony. Thus, it is only fair we play our role as the younger generation to listen and adhere to his wishes, his wishes of not having his privacy opened up and invaded by trudging visitors from everywhere. It is also for the sake of the neighbours as well. By demolishing the house in great need of renovation, the land can be redeveloped and would lead to the fluctuate in land value. I strongly believe that the history of one of our great founding father can be learned through test books, videos or a replica of the house in one of the national museum. Although the impact of Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not be as strong as having the house preserved as a heritage site towards the younger generations, the house would still be better off demolished because to be truthful, the house would require lots of money to renovate the substandard of the foundation of the house. Besides that, with visitors swarming in to observe the house, the house might not be able to withstand such a weight and the items on displays might get damaged along the way as well. The house, though precious and special, will remain as a living history of Singapore when preserved but the quality or standard of it would not be ideal when opened to visitors for a long period of time. Therefore, with that in mind, I then feel that the house being demolished would be a better option to the fate of it. 

From the discussions held in class, I realised that heritage sites play an important role in a society because it is a living historical reminder of the past and that history can be represented as heritage as well. Although Mr LKY's house received various points of views and comments, all i can say is that before we do anything, we should ask ourselves: 
"Is there real value in being at the actual location and seeing the actual artefacts?" and 
"What difference in the impact would be brought about from seeing it in person or seeing it in various platforms of delivering messages?"

Heritage sites hold numerous memories and stories that would benefit future generations but would future generations appreciate and protect them?