Singapore in 2083: Kow-Tow to Malaysia

It is the Year 2083. Singapore is now the 8th largest city in Malaysia, and has been renamed Pulau Selatan, or Southern Island. After years of infighting, Singapore was unable to catch up in the new economic world system and had to ask Malaysia to buy off its fortune. Iskandar is now the largest port in Southeast Asia. Bintan now rivals Iskandar as the regional hub, after the Indonesian government poured in millions to develop the Riau Islands in the late 2030s.

There are now about 500,000 people living in Singapore, not bad for a country which once was the shining beacon of Southeast Asia, where at its heyday when it had nearly 6.5 million people on the island. Most ex-Singaporeans had migrated to Kuala Lumpur, Iskandar and Penang to work in the service sectors there, after Singapore underwent waves of recession and collapsed. Most of the MRT lines built in the early part of the century had gone into disuse and had to be closed down. They provide refuge for the many homeless people who are now allowed to roam free on the island.

Things weren’t always like this. If you speak to an elderly sleeping in one of the disused MRT tunnels, he would tell you that in its days of glory, Singapore was the richest country in the world. It’s GDP per capita was the highest in the world in the 2020s, for at least over a decade. However, he also remembered how the income inequality was so high that it got people very angry. The government wasn’t able to appease the people and had turned to a strategy of chastising the people for not appreciating the government. This only got the people even angrier and the squabble just went downhill.

The government had turned back on its policy of welcoming foreigners into Singapore in the early 2010s, as a result of its people’s demands. By the late 2010s, there were only less than 10,000 people accepted as Singaporeans and PRs annually. Singaporeans had mostly cheered but what also happened was that industries in Singapore starting facing a shortage of labour and started to move their investments to Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. Instead of improving the work-life conditions of its people and increasing funding for fertility programmes, the government refused to do so but made a sudden U-turn instead, as it had done in 2005, to allow for an influx of foreigners without a well thought-through policy. It got the people angry once again as once again, incomes in the lower wage groups became depressed and Singaporeans felt slighted.

By the 2030s, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia were prospering with the investments that were leaving Singapore. It would be another two decades when their GDP per capita outgrew Singapore’s. Meanwhile, Singaporeans continued to go online to complain about the government and the government continued to fight back with self-appreciating remarks, not realizing that their outdated PR strategy wasn’t working for them anymore. No one had any solutions. Mass demonstrations were legalized in the late 2020s. But as Singaporeans were new to the concept, they took to the streets and continued their avalanche of complaints. The years of controlling Singapore had now created Singaporeans who knew nothing about critical social and political thinking and could only degenerate themselves into loudmouths who had nothing useful to say but with anger spewing out in every direction.

By then, the “silent majority” started to speak up. They tried to mediate among the angry people and the government. But even then, it was too late. There was very little trust between the people and the government and nothing the “silent majority” tried could bridge the differences. They started offering solutions and taking things into their own hands to fix things. But they continued to face the wrath of the angry Singaporeans, who turned onto them, thinking that they were the government’s lackey.

In the general elections of the 2040s, PAP finally lost power to the opposition. The people were overjoyed and finally, for once, we thought that things were going to get better. The people might actually work with the government to change things! But as it is, the angry people continued to be angry. Only then were we starting to realise that they were angry because they simply were. Sure, it was the PAP government which they were initially angry with but it snowballed and they couldn’t hold back. By then, a newly minted opposition-led party tried to introduce policies which appeased the people, but these policies were less effective than what they would have been if they could be hard-hitting and did what was necessary. In the next few elections, new governments were voted in and as they continued to try to appease Singaporeans, and rendered the government useless.

By the late 2070s, Singapore was long forgotten in the world economy. It ranked in the nineties in terms of GDP per capita. Malaysia’s GDP was several times higher than Singapore’s. Many Singaporeans had started leaving Singapore from the 2050s – at least for those who could still afford to do so. By the early 2080s, the government started negotiating with Malaysia for a buy-back deal, where Malaysia would take Singapore back, in exchange for cheaper labour for Malaysia’s service industries. The deal was finalised by the late 2080s and Singapore started sending its first batch of workers to mainland Malaysia.

When the elderly man who was sleeping in the train tunnel was asked why he didn’t have a home to go to, he said that when the government had proposed to build a nursing home next to where he had lived, he had petitioned against it. Now that he was in his 90s, not only does he have a home to go to, the nursing home which would have benefited him wasn’t even built. He regretted his decision for being self-centred and to have thought only of himself. But it didn’t matter anymore then since Singapore was in the down in the dumps anyway.


    • My Right to Love

      Hi OldSingaporean,

      Maybe I will explain the rationale of why I wrote this. Most people will use the same old mindset to read this – if we don’t support PAP and if we don’t vote PAP into power, Singapore will fail. No, this is not the gist of the story. In this story, PAP was voted out of power but this was not why Singapore failed. The impetus for Singapore’s failing occurred long before PAP was voted out of power.

      If you read the story carefully, the story clearly criticises both Singaporeans, as well as the PAP government.

      Clearly, our government has chosen to ignore people’s needs, but as explained, this is because the government was scared and withdrew. At the same time, they chose to be resistant towards Singaporeans’ needs, and chose to go on the path which they felt was safe, but which was not what Singaporeans want.

      However, the story pointed out as well that on our part, we have decided to get angry with the government. And instead of providing solutions, Singaporeans have grown accustomed to just complaining and criticising, so much so that we could not come out with resolutions.

      I had quickly discussed the scenario of the opposition being voted into government. Was the scenario meant to say that the opposition is weak? No. The scenario was meant to depict that if Singaporeans choose to get angry, no matter which party becomes the government, they would have to appease Singaporeans, and when they do that, they are putting politics on the forefront more than thinking about the greater good of Singapore – this can similarly happen to PAP.

      The main point that this story wants to bring out is this – the government is wrong, yes. But are the people flawless? We are all in this together. The government needs to admit its mistakes and be honest – this is what the people want. At the same time, we, the people, need to have the maturity to understand what the government is doing, criticise them when necessary, but not only that and to also provide solutions to contribute to Singapore together.

      If we choose to be like loggerheads, then the future of Singapore is questionable. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. And if you choose to think this is playing up a doomsday scenario. Look at other countries around the world. They are big enough to fail, and they have a strong domestic market. Singapore has one of the weakest domestic markets. We rely on the world to survive. Either we embrace the world or we get forgotten by the world. Simple as that.

      The main gist of the story is this – as Singaporeans, how do we want to take responsibility, or do we want to continue to think that it is not our responsibility and that we can wait for the government to do something – which is why we complain about them and hope that they will change? If we continue to be angry and do nothing and if they continue to be angry and be resistant, this will only be a stretched out play and we will see who will draw the last breath.

      • Populus

        I like how you oversimplify economics and make general references and assumptions which appeal to the emotional over the rational side of bloggers and readers aside. Ironically, most of the key arguments and points put forth are themselves based off on what our mass media sprouts off everyday, which is why even though you strive to sounds neutral by seemingly pushing BOTH sides of the coin, you’re find that on closer read both sides of the coins actually have the same face. That thats not good literature.

        For example Populism, or Populist policies arent always the evil that the its made out to be; it can appease the people, decrease the income gap and still maintain the country’s economy when well excuted. Sounds like a pipe dream doesn’t it? Well you dont have to take my word for it considering Iceland’s a pretty good example of a VERY angry populace populace that took to arms against their government and things worked out in the end. Complainers FTW eh? Oh but yea, i forgot we lack Iceland’s natural resource (which is?) and the usual argument….gosh grow up; that argument’s way past its expiry date.

        I had initially wished to critique this blog on several other issues; but decided that any acts of doing so would immediately leave me labled as a “angry complainer”. So yea, i’d stop here. Its 3am, and i need to write a paper due for submission soon.

        Neverthless, in reference to your last paragraph in which our current MRT infrastructure houses the destitute population of 2083 SIngapore? wow that must be something i’d like to see; considering that even with it up and running currently having breathing room on my train ride to school is a luxury.

  1. Alice

    This is an excellent post. I think it touches on what is going on right now, which is an unreasonable anger by people who feel that they are entitled to rant and complain. Such people are a minority in Singapore, but they seem to be a vocal presence on the internet. And they can be a bad influence.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi Alice,

      Thanks for this.

      The post also hopes to highlight that everyone needs to be responsible for Singapore, and for the plight of things right now in Singapore.

      The government and the people need to take responsibility. The government might not have done some things right or might not have done some things enough. But it doesn’t help if the people get angry and upset, get into a frenzy and hurt the government. It doesn’t help that the government is now starting to go start speaking up for itself, when this isn’t the right time to do so.

      So, both the government and the people need to take responsibility. We cannot wait for the government to do everything – we need to also develop solutions. Similarly, the government needs to learn to respect us.

      We need to work together. We need to work together.

      Thanks! 🙂


      • des

        I think you shld post this into edmw. They are constantly picking trouble with the government, like minor issue such as feng tian wei not saying the pledge and etc. They seriously need to get on their life and not being keyboard warriors.

  2. marc

    Amazing Post. One of the best articles I’ve read. Singaporeans need to understand that policies are a matter of trade off. Some policies may not have worked as well, while others have, but ultimately, and hopefully, it is for the better of Singapore.

    When I read the portion of the ‘silent majority’, my hair stood on ends. You are absolutely right on this. ‘Only then were we starting to realise that they were angry because they simply were.’

    Thanks for a great read.

  3. Siew

    I think you really overestimate the Malaysian government. I can’t really comment if Singapore is becoming a shithole, but i guarantee you Malaysia will descend into squalor much faster.

  4. Chris

    Despite falling under the ‘alternate history’ genre, your post has a lot of foreshadowing for our future. The crux of it is as you say, was a calibrated criticism against the PAP government whom richly deserve it and the Singaporeans who complain and get angry but choose not to stand up for themselves because they’re afraid of losing material gains…material gains we already have lost!

    This is a future I’d like to see, either as a Malaysian or a ghost. I suspect the latter would be more realistic!

    But as the old saying goes, ‘what goes up will come down’ one can only wonder how hard the ground will hit the PAP and our increasingly jaded and self-absorbed brethren in the very near future.

    Thank you for this, it was entertaining and yet will be an eye opener to those still with eyes that see on their own. And yes, that was double speak.

    I look forward to more ‘alternate history’ posts from you. Perhaps we could even collaborate on one!

  5. Josiah Koh

    The gist of the story that SIngaporeans (incl ruling party) should not just be happy pointing fingers at others (FT,Govt etc) is true, although I find the alternate ending quite funny and quite unrealistic. Singaporeans quite practical one leh..if the bread and butter issues get threatened, I believe that Singaporeans are willing to slog til the life they want is more or less there, THEN they will make noise again..hahaha..Anyway, Singapore is so stressful, ranting online may be people’s way of destressing, It may not lead to any real demonstration.

  6. DD

    Great scenario. This is why i’ve longed said that most Singaporeans in this day & age tend to be myopic and shallow in being selfish most of the time and the sad reality is that it will affect the country one day.

    I think the problem is Singaporeans being shielded by the Govt, parents, etc and most that have never experienced poverty and how the rest of the world is like fail to realize that the world is so much bigger and you’re very right for implying that we’re all in this together and thats the only way to move things forward.

    I’m proud to say i’m a true blue singaporean but because i’ve been overseas & traveling for a while now and looking at how Singaporeans are today just makes me sad that i may very well come to the realization that what i used to think about coming back to Singapore and settle down may just makes me cringe and decide otherwise simply because of the society it is becoming.

    All in all, i still love Singapore, let’s hope the people and govt wake up.

  7. Merlion

    “It is the Year 2083……The deal was finalised by the late 2080s and Singapore started sending its first batch of workers to mainland Malaysia.”
    How did that happen? Time travel?

  8. Fredrick Goh

    I seldom reply to any blog as andriod is so troublesome. But after reading, i must say this is the best article i ever read written by a true Singaporean. I am glad someone has such feeling.

  9. Laremy


    “Elderly” is not a singular noun; it is used as a collective noun or an adjective. Also, please find out what the subjunctive mood is.

    Your sentence should have been written as: “If you [were to] speak to an elderly [person] sleeping in one of the disused MRT tunnels…”.


  10. Leo

    Well written. I will share this story on FB. Angry minority can’t always have the loudspeaker. While the silent majority do share solutions here and there including myself. I am quite skeptical about our voices being heard. With regards to the National Conversation. Everyone is shouting something. It’s overwhelming that I think the govt can’t take em all down.

    Maybe we should form up and ‘take things in our hands’ like you wrote in your story, except that we should do something as a united Silent Front forwarding solutions by majority vote etc. rather than shouting out as an individual before it’s too late.

  11. jeremy han

    Your story chilled my spine because it is a possibility that many take for granted will not happen. History has proven time and again that this IS the likely fate of nations. Look at Rome, what is it now? Its language, Latin, is no longer used. Venice, the great maritime power is now a mere tourist destination with smelly canals. Brilliantly written, frighteningly possible!

  12. Kumar

    hahaha This is so terribly asinine. A waste of an article with a pretentious “moral” tacked on at the end. Please do us all a favour and do a lot more thinking before even considering writing your next one.

  13. Demurs

    I have always believe that our future lies with Malaysia. Singapore has been a part of Malaya for most of its history. Hence, it is only prudent for us to re-unify with our brothers up north. Majulah Malaysia!

  14. sameotottochan

    It sounds more plausible for malaysia to attack Singapore, but even then, it’s impossible seeing how much we placed on defence. Singapore will never fall into such steps because one, it just won’t happen. Contrary to popular belief, the 60.14 percent arent daft. Neither the 39+ percent, of course. And yes, the younger generation that votes pap do exist. Singapore will have more opposition in the future, yes, but it will not fall into the opposition control(due to lack of talent there).
    2. Malaysia has a worse government, with a lousier gdp, with a government who are fighting over racial issues longer than most of us have been alive. I dont see how It wont have a downfall before us, if we were ever to face a downfall.
    Author said something like, people complained unhappily about income inequality. Well duh, it isnt just singaporeans only actually, it just so happens that our youngsters connect well with the internet, and they expressed their views loudly on the internet. For me, i rather have that than countries like usa, where all the ‘cool’ people express their loud views on other individuals.
    When we complain, at least we continue to strive forward. And unlike others, Singaporeans actually ARE resilient. We learn meritocracy at a young age.
    In fact, despite all my unhappiness with the system, education,(I am 17) My friends and I DO love singapore a lot.
    So, I disagree(gently;D) with the author’s view.
    I think this scenario wont happen.
    If it does, at the very least, the year 2183.

    • Et

      The problem with Singaporeans is that we do not recognize the fact that we are without natural resources while our neighbours around us do. Because we have been successful for the last 47 years as a small nation state, we think we can shift to high and low gear anytime. We think the foreigners take away our jobs but it is precisely the large investments by their countries, and locating regional HQs here that created jobs for us to earn an income. If we do not welcome them, it is true we will start to lose jobs, when they decided they are not welcome and move their businesses elsewhere. We are a great hub because MNCs invested their assets and they enriched Singapore in terms of connectivity for trade. If we lose our edge by shifting to lower gear, allowing other countries to overtake us, do we really think we are gods that can shift to higher gears and regain our position when we want to? Do not be mistaken. There are many countries that will love to overtake us and if I were them, I will throw in everything I have to maintain that lead over Singapore, and do even more to extend the lead! Why do you say that it is impossible for us to be part of Malaysia in the future? We are too big headed to recognize the threat. We are a small island and we are not reproducing enough to replace ourselves. Malaysia have vast lands and if one day they get their acts together, which I am already sensing it when I interacted with their locals, they will have talented people that can grow their country. They have land to fill their growing population in many years to come but we have limited land (limit to 8 mil population the most?). We are vulnerable if we recognize this, and yet many think we are strong and can decide our fate. Think again. Education is important to Singapore as we need our people to constant reinvent Singapore to be relevant to the world, to keep us prospering. But at the same time, we can become ‘big headed’ and think we know all. I read from a book about security that it is about the people willing to give up a bit of freedom and rights to the government they vote into power, so that the government can do it’s job to ensure security for the larger good. However, Sinagporeans demand the rights and are capable of finding faults with the government that I sometimes think it distracted the government from doing the things they should be doing – providing a safe, secured and conducive Singapore for now and the future generations. Lastly, don’t be fundamentally surprised when some parts of the scenario happened. We should not let our success blind our eyes to the realities around us, and be constructive when we speak our minds, for the good of our country and the generations that will come after us.

  15. Truely Singapore

    This is obviously written by someone who has no idea of the economic of the world and Singapore! This is utterly rubbish and no sense of belonging to Singapore. FYI Singapore is the richest country in the world! The economy is so good that at least 100years later Singapore will still be on top of Malaysia! If anything happen Brunei will step in instead of Malaysia. Please post something that is meaningful and not curse your country!

  16. Aloysius

    When I read the first few sentence of this article, it had certainly gotten my quite anguished why one would write such article. It is nearly impossible we would be in that state. And the first thought that came into my mind, this must have been written by jealous neighbouring citizens.

    But, as I continued reading, I rationalized, and I thought what you said were true. Politcs aside, Singaporeans are, generally, complainers. We complaint about everything that doesn’t go the way we want, and we’re practically angry about everything.

    I am happy the way certain things are ran in Singapore, for example, education. No favouritism for anyone. If you are good, you go on to the next higher level. It is the same when it comes to working.

    That said, there are indeed things that I am not satisfied about, not with the political party, but because some not so capable representatives of my constituency, I’m not sure how she managed to stay for so long, maybe due to the lack of competition from opposition (you’d be surprised how incompetent opposition fill in incompetent candidates to run an election for my constituency for the sake of competing with the government), I can say that she is totally not capable of representing us. For 23 years of my life staying at this place, I have never seen who my MP was, If you ask me who she is, surely I can tell you the name instantly, how does she look like? (Shrugs my head).

    Well, my point is not about her not being prominent, the fact is, she hasn’t done anything notable anyway. Last year, our estates finally got lifts that serves every floor. Hougang residents complaining about their estates not being upgraded, well, mine only got upgraded last year. We’re not very different, only that now my estate is upgraded. But we are a PAP ward. I’m not saying that what government announce must take effect the next day. Upgrading is only a small effort an MP could do, it’s not even significant whether my flat has lifts that serves every floor.

    Unfortunately, my representative, is not as competent as others. I recalled when I was a poly student in 2008, well, my dad was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer some time in 2007 or early 2008. It was hard for our family. My dad had to undergo chemotherapy amongst other treatments. So, that means by the end of 2007, my dad had to leave his job as a security guard because of his health. My sister, was pregnant around the same time, so she would fund most of our household necessities before she left her job to stay at home and prepare for labour. I am the only son, and I was studying, I took part time for a while, but left because I couldn’t juggle with my studies. And my mother, who couldn’t continue working because no one is taking care of my father. Thankfully, my eldest uncle took care of my grandmother, or it would have been an even bigger burden for my mother.

    So this was what happened, after my dad and my mum left their job, we were practically living off my sister, who has to support a family of her own. She wasn’t a mother at that time, so she could afford to help us here and there. Exhausting all possible options, we went to our representative, and after telling her so much about our situation, all she could do is to tell us, go look for a job to earn some money. I mean, surely, I wasn’t hoping you would give me money. The least you can do is to give concessions for certain necessity like, say, utility bills. If we had been able to take up a job while having someone to take care of my father, we wouldn’t have gone to you for help. You mean I cannot find a job on my own that I have to seek your help? Or are you telling me that if my mother went and look for a job, you would take care of my father?

    I continued voting for her though, because oppositions cannot provide an alternative that is enough to convince me, hey, we will look after your well-being.

    • GSY

      (Continued, damn iPhone keyboard) While I first expected this to be an article that was rabidly anti-PAP (those guys on seem bent on portraying themselves as doomsday prophets), I’m glad it did not. It’s bloody refreshing to hear an online voice who is actually objective and realises the need for both the govt and the people to buck up.

      I wonder if there’s the possibility of authoritarianism taking hold in the middle of the timeline though. Looking at the history of Singapore and the region in general, governments have the tendency to wield an iron fist in dire times. I suppose the increasingly liberal nature of our world would make that scenario a less and less probable but looking at how many Asian societies are willing to choose stability over liberty, it does not seem impossible.

      Perhaps it’s just my imagination going wild.

  17. Lon

    This sounds overly pessimistic though I somehow get your message. Probably one of the worst-case scenarios but don’t think it will happen, not at least at such a fast speed…

  18. Jeremy

    Love this phrase : “The years of controlling Singapore had now created Singaporeans who knew nothing about critical social and political thinking and could only degenerate themselves into loudmouths who had nothing useful to say but with anger spewing out in every direction.”

    Singaporeans (most) are just too loud mouthed without a mindset to think through things in a bigger picture. All these (the ones who love to complain, complain, complain) people are the ones that have the limelight to the public because these are the nonsense that the media love.

    Posts like these should be the ones that the media should front as an awareness for every Singaporean instead.

  19. Jason

    Its a good read because if one bothers to take some time out to read between the lines, there’s actually a lot of truth in it. I am glad that the writer actually insinuated that the existing govt has its flaws and “need to stand up and admit their mistakes”. We can all probably agree that at this current state, no matter what they do, they will always be faulted. Probably they should work on engaging the general population again.

  20. Bored@night

    i enjoyed reading this article but as I scrolled down to read the comments, I realised the comments entertained me way more. Good job, good visualization, interesting read. Its your opinion and your certainly are entitled to it, never mind what all the other angry readers commented.

  21. Lee

    One is thing is for sure, Singapore’s demise is guaranteed due to the govt’s destructive growth at all costs policy. The govt’s liberal immigration policy has led to a divisive society and diluted national identity. High inflation,low wage growth, competition for jobs, lack of social security and widening rich poor gap has led to people becoming more selfish. If war were to break out with Malaysia later, no one would be willing to defend Singapore. Malaysia would destroy our airports, ports, oil refineries, financial centre, etc and take all our business. Singapore pro MNC policy will see many MNC migrating to Malaysia and China due to lower wage cost. Instead of taking the longer route of developing home-grown companies like Hyflux and Creative at a cost of slower economic growth, the govt’s short-sighted policy of encouraging foreign investments via MNCs will see Singapore at the mercy of MNCs. Why is it that Scandinavian countries similar in size to sg don’t have to import high no of foreigners and pursue high economic growth to maintain high standard of living while Singapore have to?.It’s because they have their own home-grown companies. If they want cheaper labour costs for production, they can always go to Singapore or China, meanwhile they can do high value added activities like research back at home. If CHina tighten their intellectual property rights law, all MNCs in Singapore will migrate to China and we would be left with nothing. My advise is to leave Singapore while you can so that your future generations don’t have to suffer

    • Aloysius

      I don’t think anyone would be so stupid to take us down by destroying our key facilities and then take over us. Singapore has got practically no resources they want except its wealth, destroying all these is like taking over a dead land and rebuilding it.

      • My Right to Love

        Hi Aloysius,

        Actually – agreed.

        Which is why the government has to try doubly, triply hard to make Singapore relevant, and which is why we need foreigners to come in so that we become truly interconnected and can tap on this interconnectedness to survive.

        So, yes, agreed.


    • My Right to Love

      Hi Lee,

      The flaw of the immigration policy isn’t that it’s liberal. The flaw is that in the opening up of our borders, we did not plan the infrastructure to match up in its timing of development, and we did not look into the protection of Singaporeans’ wages.

      The country needs more workers – because we keep having jobs. But even as we invite people in, the government needs to protect its people – the flaw was that the government might have blindsided on that.

      Singapore needs to be global to survive – because we don’t have a huge domestic market. Slow down the number of migrants and investments and we our economy will downsize by a lot. By then, many of us will lose our jobs.

      The silly thing is that Singaporeans got angry and asked for the government to restrict migrant flow and the government did just that. If I were the government, I would be more than happy to do that. Instead of allowing the government to keep its borders opened, and tell them, if you want do that, fine – but make sure our pay match up. Calibrate it. We didn’t. We decide to get angry with the foreigners and we lose sight of the plot. So, now we have lost an opportunity to argue for a pay rise, because the government has agreed to slow down the inflow of migrants – which was the main crux of why our pay remained stagnant.


  22. Pingback: ____________________________________yyings:)
  23. gret

    those who are saying how childish this article is certainly failed to get the message lol. don’t read this literally… there’s a deeper meaning behind.

    • Jason

      exactly! And even after people telling them to look at the deeper meaning, they are still “stomping their feet” (pardon the pun) and insisting their opinion. While they are entitled to their own opinion, I hope for their own sake, that they could realize that they totally missed the point of this article.

  24. Pingback: My Fellow Singaporeans: What Will You Do? « The Heart Truths
  25. Smith

    Interesting read. I don’t think it is childish. It’s not impossible well Im not saying it’s happening too. Take a chill pill and enjoy the creativity people.

  26. Bill

    Unfortunately the Malaysian and Indonesian government are too corrupted for this to even happen. And your understanding of economics is very shallow.

      • My Right to Love

        Hi sameotottochan,

        No, I don’t understand even 10% of Malaysia. But then I was writing about Singapore.

        And perhaps I should label my article clearly in future – that it is a satire. Many people are commenting about the facts, statistics etc.

        And have chosen not to see the meaning behind the article.

        To reiterate – Singaporeans, we need to work together to find solutions – only because this is our country and if we don’t do it, we can wait for someone else to do it for us when it’s no longer ours.


  27. KC

    I read this. While there is a shred of truth in how Singaporeans are (they like to complain), it is so fundamentally flawed that the proposed future couldn’t possibly happen. a) Singapore’s government plans long term b) Malaysia has too many inherent problems to get their shit together in the near future and rival Singapore c) All the article talks about is angry Singaporeans complaining and protesting.

    Essentially, it is the most unplausible future ever. Taking the most extreme of extreme worst case scenario of Singapore (that to be honest is very uncharacteristic of Singapore so far) with the best of the best of the best case scenario of Malaysia.

    Predicting neigh sayers I will say that the government is not always right, and should listen to what the general population has to say (although the public is not always right). So long as the government continue to look after the country with its best interest in mind, Singapore should continue to prosper. There is nothing currently that would suggest the proposed future, with Singapore growing and developing at a healthy rate.

    I understand what the author is attempting to put across, and so as an exaggerated if completely implausible future of our future, it does put across (albeit heavy handedly) that we need to stop complaining and propose solutions instead, and the government has to listen to the people.

    Its 2:30 in the morning (Los Angeles) and I’m tired. I’m just disappointed to have read what I feel is an article that is so far removed from reality and the truth that it hurts my head and feel the need to vent.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi KC,

      You are right. This is a satire. There is of course no shred of statistical truth in this. If there is, I can quit my job and be a fortune teller.

      The point of this article is not what the article actually says – it’s the philosophy that the article wants to purport.

      Which is this – it’s time we get our act to together and work together. Because all of us have a stake in this.

      So, if I haven’t already said, this is a satire – oh, yes I did. It is a satire, so see what it’s trying to say and not what it actually is saying. Perhaps you were too tired to have realised that.



  28. kuants

    It’s so sad that people think that you are fear-mongering. I guess that reflects what these people have become – cynics.

    It’s doubly sad to see xenophobic people who can’t take a bit of competition, I guess that reflects how they are brought up – overly pampered children with an overgrown sense of self-entitlement.

    Finally it’s sad to see ignorant people who believe that this couldn’t happen at all. There’s nothing stopping the economic progress of our neighbors, if our population degrades to nothing more than a bunch of complainers. (Fortunately, the silent ones are still the majority)

    I applaud the author’s imagination to bring across a few points which I believe and I hope Singaporeans would appreciate:

    1. First and foremost, the main point of this article is not about Government policies.

    2. As much as we are not perfect as human beings, we cannot expect a perfect Government;

    3. Singapore is our home and it is still a work-in-progress;

    4. And lastly, no matter if you are an Opposition or a PAP supporter, what we seem to dearly lack is unity as a people. A people who yearn for progress and not entitlements; A people who can sometimes think about the nation instead of the self.

    To top it off, and another tragedy if you still not cognizant of why i say this:
    I am a supporter of the opposition.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi kuants,

      Thank you very much for this 🙂

      Like you, I think we cannot play sides, otherwise we will end up in a situation where the country is split down the centre between the Democrats and Republicans. And we don’t want that to happen.

      We want Singapore to continue to be able to function, where everyone plays a responsible role to provide solutions. If all 5 million people in Singapore provides solutions for Singapore instead of complain, we would have 5 million ways to improve Singapore instead of 5 million ways of angry voices.

      Thank again, kuants


  29. Spartan

    I appreciate this cautionary tale.

    I noted that you gave Singapore a life-span of 118 years (from 1965 to 2083) in this tale. That’s actually 1 decade more than the 1st Asian Republic, the Lanfang Republic, which lasted all of 108 years. The Lanfang Republic declined and eventually disappeared when the source of its strengthen (Qing Dynasty China) declined and turned inwards, thus leaving its vassals to fend for themselves. Interestingly, the Lanfang Republic (which was in Southeast Asia) was ruled by ethnic Chinese, who were also the majority race. Will Singapore last longer than the Lanfang Republic?

    Corruption – it has not prevented China from becoming the 2nd largest economy in the world after 30 years of development. There is no reason why corruption will prevent Malaysia or Indonesia from over-taking Singapore economically. They have the land, the large population base and the natural resources. And their economy will almost certainly grow faster than Singapore’s in 2012. This trend is likely to continue into the future years. Not hard to postulate from there.

    The story of Iceland’s rebound from economy recession is interesting (pointed out by a commentor), although I would say that for a country with 320,000 people (comparable to Brunei), tourism alone (with favourable exchange rates for tourists due to Iceland’s economic woes a few years back) will generate quite a few jobs. Also, Iceland has no immediate neighbour competing with it. It is afterall surrounded by oceans (not straits).

    On the issue of Singapore’s economic success, a lot of it is from foreign investments. These foreign capital can easily flow elsewhere if they have a good enough reason to. When that happens, the S$ will weaken, leading to increased costs for food and energy, which are imported. This results in imported inflation, relative to our neighbours, which erodes Singapore’s competitiveness. Which in turn results in more capital out-flow, which weakens the S$ further. In other words, a vicious cycle. Singapore experienced part of this in the ’97 Asian Financial Crisis.

    • My Right to Love

      Dear Spartan,

      Thanks for this.

      Just a quick note – I agree with you on the point that a lot of Singapore’s economic success is premised on foreign investments.

      It is thus ironic that we are reducing the inflow of foreigners, because this will necessarily have an impact on the economy. But of course, the question is, at which trade off are we willing to compromise until?

      I do believe that once the unhappiness blows over, or at least subsides, and once the government appeases the people satisfactorily, the policy will be relooked to increase foreign labour – only because jobs are still created and we need people, simple as that. But when that happens, the government has to ensure that the reintroduction of this policy will not depress the wages of people. At the same time, it cannot slow down the increase of the people’s wages. The main reason why people are angry is they are able to accurately point out a major flaw in the government’s policy – of causing wage stagnation because the government left everything to market forces, with calibrating wage increment to account for a situation where there wasn’t an influx in foreigners.

      But at this point, a lot depends on what the government will do next. It has to take some immediate bold steps to appease the people – but only if these are what is right for Singapore. The people’s anger has boiled over for issues which were brought out over a gradual period but conveniently neglected. The current situation is only a case of the government being forced to finally face up to what the people are concerned about. The government is playing catching up in that sense, so hopefully it will do the right thing. And I think they are, but they need to consolidate their efforts.


  30. Des

    This story sure gives the picture of two famous quotes pertaining to governance:

    “Policies are rational but politics is emotional” – Lord Mandelson

    “People should not be afraid of their goverments. Goverments should be afraid of their people.” – V for Vendetta

    Do we want a populist government or a government that run the country well? No government is perfect.

    • Jason

      Hi Des, I agree with your comments. Just some thoughts.

      1. If there is a change in leadership in the existing govt, will the new setup be populist? i.e. If PAP were to lose the majority, will it necessary be a change towards populist policies?

      2. I mentioned pt 1 because by saying that, we are forgetting the role of the civil service and ministries in policy formulation and implementation.

      3. Govt that runs the country well? Depends on how you look at it. We have to agree that no matter what the PAP govt does, there will always be a group of ppl who will criticize them. However, they should be concerned that a rising group of rational ppl who are increasingly questioning their implementation of policies, constantly citing the lack of engagement as their main criticism. Hence, is there truth is this?

      As much as I do appreciate what the previous govts have done for this country, we might want to step back and ask ourselves, what actually prompted all these backlash?

      Fruit for thought.

      1) Why have HDB prices soared out of control? Was it because of 1) Goh Chok Tong’s statement of Asset Enhancement or 2) was it under Mah Bow Tan’s watch when he was Minister of National Development? 3) Or was it HDB, as a statutory board, not doing enough to advise the Minister?

      2) When Mas Selemat escaped, was it Wong Kan Seng’s fault or was it SPF’s?

      There are probably many other examples but I just want to point out that as much as this existing govt can be criticized for certain things, we have to attribute some of the blame to the civil service too. And ppl working in the civil service, is just like the average person like me and you. On this note, I thought this article was spot-on when it said that all Singaporeans have to look at themselves and see what we can contribute to bring this country forward.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi Des and Jason,

      Thought I would add to the discussion.

      1. My take is that it doesn’t matter the form and structure the government takes but it has to be a strong government which makes the right decisions – so it can be a single or multi-party, it can even be communist or democratic – the idea is that it has to be a strong government. We do not want to be saddled with infighting within a government, which delays the roll-out of policies when necessary.

      2. But how do we know when the right decisions to be made? The government would necessarily have to involve the people through consultations, and to also work with experts in the fields consulted on. The final decision does rest with the government, but if an open, wide and honest consultation was truly conducted, it would gather enough views to shape the policies to as best a level as it can be.

      I actually do agree with the structure that PAP operates on – they are able to have a strong government. But necessarily there are trade offs, because by being singular, they are over-powering and might not see the need to consult widely, or sincerely enough, and this would compromise the effect of the policy as well as the usefulness of the policy, when it does not completely caters to the people’s needs. Necessarily, we would assume that the government would make a responsible decision, but as Jason has said, people can make mistakes, so further openness for engagement can mitigate the effects of human error.


  31. Nat

    As a worker in elderly healthcare, I thank you for penning the last paragraph. 🙂 I’m deeply reminded of George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm while reading your article. Keep writing!

  32. slaveman

    The scenario highlighted in the article posted might really happened if we as Singaporeans keeps being myopic and self centered. I feel Singaporeans are generally too “pampered” as a whole. Anything that doesn’t go our way, blame the government. FYI, the government does not owe us a living. You can’t expect the government to spoon feed you all your life. The government is there to support you with all the subsidies but, you will have to help yourselves first.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi slaveman,

      That is true. I do hope we stop complaining – and then waiting for the government to fix things.

      We need to show the government what to fix, by giving them the options, so providing solutions as well 🙂


  33. Denton

    A bit stretched, but still a good read. I especially concur with the bit about Singaporeans being “complainers”. There isn’t a day I don’t feel sad when browsing through my friends’ rants about the PAP on FB, behaving like armchair experts on economics and politics whilst labeling PAP supporters as sheep yet failing to realise that they themselves have jumped on board the PAP-bashing bandwagon. I personally believe most arguments concerning government not caring about the populace is simply a veneer to cover for their own insecurities and ineptness.

    P.S: Speaking of armchair experts, scroll down to take a look at the alleged economics experts in the comments.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi Denton,

      Thanks for this. I agree with you – I think it is important we debate about the future of the country, and propose solutions instead of end off our debates without one, but with anger.

      Though I would like to add that the government does perhaps need to engage the people in more sincere ways. Not doing so might be construed as being insecure too, so our government needs to be a bit bolder – I still believe that they can make things happen, if we work together.

      I am not well-versed in economics as well, as many have pointed out in their discussion. By scrolling down, are you referring to me? 😛



  34. Drew

    If this post was meant to hit out at the ‘complainers’ who seem to flourish online, then perhaps we have not really considered the role of these ‘online armchair whiners’ in the discourse for Singapore’s betterment.

    There is a thing called ‘hegemonic’ discourse, which is basically the ‘talk’ that people engage in without considering why they even talk about this issue – basically just taking some parameters and assumptions as given, non-negotiable.This discourse is usually perpetuated by a silent authority. For example, many people seem to believe that ‘complainers’ online are a bad thing, as though people should not express their dis-satisfaction anywhere but in their heads. Many people have taken this to be a negative, and it’s easy to understand why – who likes a complainer? Who likes the person who only talks and whines, but does not get up and do something about his dis-satisfaction? So we all take it as a given that this online ‘vitriol’ is a negative thing. Rather, we have been made to believe so, and talk about it as such.

    That’s unfortunate. While we may not agree with the level of crudeness existing online lambasting the government/PAP/whoever, we shouldn’t brush this off as mere “vitriol” and “senseless” complaining. There is a group of vocal minority online, and some may come across as extreme in their views, but for a democratic system to work, they should be accepted for what they are – extreme, but relevant. If there are loopholes or mistakes in their arguments/complains, then they are extreme, relevant but wrong. But still relevant because they represent one of the many voices.

    The ‘silent majority’ will always be silent. A “majority” cannot be vocal – no modern country is governed by plebiscite .What is referred to when one talks about the ‘silent majority’ is the moderates in society – those who don’t swing too far left or right in the political spectrum. The problem we have in Singapore’s political discourse is not that the ‘silent majority’ is not speaking, but that the voices of the moderate-leaning ‘vocal minority’ are not drowning out the extreme ones. A widely accepted reason for this is that the majority of Singaporeans( read: moderate) are apathetic about politics. This has to do with our historical development as a nation.Remember, at one point of time in our history, people were asked to join political parties( read: opposition) if they wanted to even talk politics, so you can imagine the effect of that ‘suggestion’ on the moderates in society.

    Perhaps it is a good thing that we have online armchair critics, whiners, complainers and so on. At least they talk and make noise. Perhaps because of the extremity of the views in existence, the moderate ‘vocal minority’ of the ‘silent majority’ may one day decide to stand up to speak, and speak in sufficient numbers to represent a true alternative voice. But till that happens( perhaps in decades, or never, who knows?), I think we should be thankful that there are at least some people who bother to type rants that may never appear elsewhere but online.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi Drew,

      Thank you. You had proposed your perception of the societal communication and provided your analysis on it.

      1. You mentioned that for a democratic system to work, ‘complainers’, as you term it, “should be accepted as what they are” and even when “they are extreme, relevant but wrong,”, they are “still relevant because they represent one of the many voices.” I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say. From my perspective, in a democratic society, necessarily everyone should have an equal stake in the governance of the country, but this freedom also means that we need to be able to exercise this freedom responsibly.

      2. You mentioned that “a “majority” cannot be vocal – no modern country is governed by plebiscite.” You drew parallel between how a majority cannot be vocal with a referendum. How does one reinforce the other, or not? Perhaps you would like to explain further. I don’t quite understand why you suggest that the “majority” can’t be vocal. You had indicated that a democracy needs to work, and by its very definition, a democracy needs to have equal participation – which you clearly agree with. How then would you suggest that a “majority” cannot be vocal?

      3. You had mentioned that “a widely accepted reason for this is that the majority of Singaporeans( read: moderate) are apathetic about politics” because of “our historical development as a nation.” The example that you had pointed out is that “people were asked to join political parties( read: opposition) if they wanted to even talk politics.” Let me suggest that a further historical development, which would lend more weight to what you would like to purport is that the “historical development” of the policies which have been implemented to prevent social discourse has necessarily stunted Singaporeans’ ability to engage in social discussions, and political ones, if they fear that they would be apprehended for doing so. This, has of course, evolved in the current climate.

      I would appreciate that you would not use big words to justify an opinion that you have. I would engage in a further sociological discussion with you, if I could perhaps understand your thoughts better. They are not entirely comprehensible, nor consistently argued.

      What is your point in writing this again?

      Thank you.


      • Drew

        Hi Roy,

        Thank you for your point by point rebuttal. I am not interested in a debate, but yes, you are right in implying that I have a point in writing the comment. Before I explain what that is, I just want to say that I don’t use ‘big words’ to justify an opinion – on the contrary, words that appear ‘big'( perhaps you meant they sounded like jargons?) are used for the purpose of condensing meaning, for brevity’s sake. It is, afterall, a comment.

        Now, the reason why I wrote the above is because I find too many commentators, on old and new media alike, categorizing the things they see on the internet as vitriol, senseless complains and unconstructive criticisms. This is very understandable. It makes intuitive sense to label somebody who rants about the government day in, day out without making any suggestions or doing anything about it as a ‘whiner’ or ‘complainer’. I can understand the logic behind that label.

        However, I wanted to point out that the very reason why we categorize such people in that manner is because there is this unquestioned assumption or idea that “anonymous people on the internet are vile, cynical and don’t do much for society”. Where did that assumption come from in the first place? I was arguing that as a society, our discourse is somewhat shaped by influential leaders – political, social, cultural – and no guesses here for who shapes the discourse the most in Singapore.

        On the point about democracy, we may like to think, in an ideal world, there is equal participation in a democracy. The reality is that even in a democracy, there are leaders or individuals who take the views of the majority and expresses them as a unified voice. In that sense, the many voices of the majority is filtered through a leader – the majority does not speak because it would be kinda hard to know what the majority agress on right? The ‘majority’ can’t come together and have a million hour talking session and finally agree on something, can they? In that sense, the majority is always silent, their voices heard through a minority of leaders who unify those disparate opinions. You may disagree, so perhaps you could share an example where the majority is vocal, as you see it?

        Going back to my original intention, the point is, if we want to cultivate a lively debate of ideas and widespread participation, it’s best that we don’t villify the complainers. They have a role to play in airing the extreme end of society’s views and while I agree that it is not entirely desirable, I think someday their prevalence may urge some of the more moderate voices to finally speak up. If people don’t whine on the internet and the moderate liberal( change-seeking) voices don’t speak up, we would end up with what we’ve been having the past decades.

        (By the way, I think the “complain” and “whining” in Singapore is relatively mild compared to the very harsh rhetoric people are exposed to everyday in other countries[ think the Neo-Nazis in Europe and Tea Party in the US]. Thank goodness for that.)

      • My Right to Love

        Hi Drew,

        Thanks for replying. I haven’t yet read through carefully, but I was thinking through what you had written yesterday, and I realised that perhaps I was being not very understanding. I am sorry that my response might seemed offensive. I am sorry

        I am will read through again your response later. Thank you for your patience. 🙂 Wasn’t right of me to make a snap judgment, even if it was 4am in the morning when I was replying.

        Thanks again Drew


      • My Right to Love

        Hi Drew,

        Thanks for your comment. I have a much better understanding of your thoughts now and agree with you on some level.

        I agree that people there might be people who complain online, but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t actually doing something about it. For example, I’m only writing articles, but I’m not exactly writing petitions, or proposing radical solutions as well. What makes me different from them? Nothing, except that perhaps I try to use tamer language, but of course you should disagree, since I wasn’t all that polite last night.

        (Before I go on, I would like to apologize. I had assumed that I understood what you were saying, when I don’t think I had really did – I made the very same mistake as I had, commenting to some that they had not tried to understand my article, and had used their own perspectives to understand what I had written. Yet, I had done the same to you and that doesn’t make me any wiser. I’m sorry. I note that you have not used offensive language in your reply and was patient. Thank you for your understanding. It’s very much appreciated.)

        But you are right. People might complain online, but instead of them being flawed for complaining, there might be other reasons that they are doing so. For example, we are new to the medium of using the Internet to express our views and think that the anonymity shields us from having to equally conduct our discussions in decorum. And thus we might ‘let it out’ without seeing the need to be respectful of others. So, this is something we need to learn. Also, we have not had an opportunity to feedback to the government for a relatively long time, and now that we are able to do that, we might not yet have found an optimal way of doing it, and complaining functions as feedback on several levels – we complain because as of now, it is a letting out of years of repressed views, we complain because that’s how we make sense of our lives, and how we express them as honestly as we feel them.

        I guess what this means is that, we should be aware of why we are complaining, and then also how feedback works in our mind. It would also mean that we should have a broader understanding of issues, so that when we make sense of issues in our lives, we can understand them in more complex ways, than see only one aspect of it, and get angry. (This also means I need to step back and try to understand what others want to say, and what you want to say, before I make a snap judgement.)

        And I agree, in an ideal work, democracy would be practiced in its ideal form. And there isn’t a lot of time that the government has to consult everyone. That would not be efficient governance – though I would suggest that the government would need to at least find a better balance in their engagement – to listen to more diverse opinions sincerely, to form an understanding that is informed from a more in-depth and representative level.

        Thank you


      • My Right to Love

        Hi Drew,

        Just to add, I see where you are coming from on valuing the importance on people who complain – we need to understand that we might view people who complain in negative ways because of the tone of their feedback. However, if we remove ourselves from being emotionally effected by the tone and language use, there is useful feedback to gather from it as well.

        And like you had suggested, our starting to complain is part of evolution, from us realising out ability to voice out our opinions, to know expressing it in angry ways, as we learn to reclaim this voice. In the long term, as part of this evolution, more people will speak out in moderate voices or to also propose solutions as well. And you are right, because it is happening right now. I’m beginning to see people on forums and discussions urging for a more balanced and understanding way of expressing ourselves.

        This suggests that the current state of discussion in Singapore is undergoing part of an evolution and if are able to reduce our emotional reactions to it, we would be able to have a more intensified understanding of viewpoints from others. At the same time, some people might feel that there’s a culture where we cannot be seen to be embarrassed or seen to fail, so when people criticize the government, the government may just as well take the criticism defensively. I suppose, this would mean that we would need to learn the ability to let to of feeling embarrassed, and cope positively with feedback, whether perceived as good or bad.

        It also means that we need to learn to fine tune our understanding of one another and learn to see beyond the emotions to what is truly said. And you are right – we have to learn to understand this evolution, and learn to have a complex understanding of the issue of complaining, and if we understand the technicalities behind the use of complains, that we can have a more engaging discussion, if we put aside our fears.

        Effectively, we are in the midst of an evolution of how people feedback, and this will past and bring Singapore to a new level of discussion, one that is stronger and will indefinitely benefit Singapore’s movement into a knowledge economy.

        Drew, I thank you for bringing this out and providing a different and necessary analysis about complaining. It is very useful and much appreciated.

        Thank you, Drew.

  35. Mike

    The role of government is to restrain, not to give people what they want. If you give people what they want, there will be no end, and the angriest people will remain angry, demanding and take everything and more.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi Mike,

      I would suggest rather, that the role of the government is to do what is right, and to balance people’s needs with the country’s survival.

      Doing what is right also necessarily mean that the government doesn’t pander to everything that the citizens want, if it does not serve the greater interest of the country and its people.

      Essentially, we have the same belief – that we cannot give people everything they want – if their needs, as mentioned, are not favourable to the survival of the countru and the people.


  36. Just a passerby

    The fact that you left out many many key points about both Singapore’s and Malaysia’s goverment is astounding. You can really do with some research: 1. Malaysia’s goverment is so many times worser off then Singapore’s goverment. Even as a Swedish PR i can realise this in a glance. 2. Really? An influx and outflux of foreigners causing our country to fall into destitute? I am not a PAP supporter but it is really necessary for you to realise the ridiculous nature of your comments. If you want to write a story to bring across a point/points, thats fine with me. But your examples and illustrations are very very exaggerated and are at the brink of being idealistic. Your attempt to play on the emotions of readers and temper with their rational sense is prehaps unintended, but is still wrong. True enough, Singapore does have her flaws, but no country is perfect. I can also write an essay about the United States’ collapse, or even Malaysia’s collapse. In fact, i can write a better essay for Malaysia’s collapse since recent events in the country seems to signify that there is serious corruption, and structural deficiencies in the governing system.
    To end off, just want the writer to really appreciate what we have. The political scene in Singapore has been evolving in recent years as the opposition becomes more prominent. This shows that we citizens/PRS are aware of the flaws and deficiencies of our current governance. It is unrealistic and unfeasible to write a ridiculous story on SIngapore’s return to Malaysia as that will never happen.

    • My Right to Love

      Hi Just a passerby,

      Unfortunately, you have missed the crux of my article – the article aims to point out that everyone has a shared responsibility in Singapore. It is not meant to highlight the flaws of the government or the people, and pitch them against one another. It is not in my interest to create disharmony in Singapore. It is neither my interest to see Singapore fail. Singapore is my home, and if you have read my other articles and my about page, you would know that I am very proud of Singapore and our achievements, and I have thank my government many times on this blog.

      I would appreciate if you could read the article again and pick out what the article intends to say – that we have a responsibility as Singaporeans and anyone who have invested their future in this country, regardless of whether we are the people or as the government, and if we don’t take responsibility to constructively aid in the development of Singapore, there are consequences.

      If you could give me any key facts about Singapore and Malaysia, I will gladly add them in where relevant. I would be especially grateful if you could give me key facts from anytime between the 2010s to 2080s – I couldn’t find any of them, which the majority of this article is premised on – which by the way, is a satire, if you hadn’t realised by now.

      It is very unfortunate that some people have chosen to read this article with their own perspectives, and have come to judge or presuppose judgments, according to their mind’s eye. I would need to reiterate that if the reader can see beyond their own prejudices, they would clearly understand that my aim is to remind Singaporeans of what is at stake and how we can WORK TOGETHER as a people, to move Singapore together.

      I, as well as you, have a stake in Singapore, and I do not believe we can go it alone, either as the government or as the people. The future of Singapore is pretty much dependent on a people who have the critical thinking abilities to think broadly, and help provide solutions to bring Singapore into the next era.

      Thank you.


  37. fivetwosix

    Does not matter if it’s not the most polished of pens, it’s the heart, and the heart of the message that matters at the end of it. I appreciate this writing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s