Mass State-Sanctioned Population Management

Dear Molly,

I take offence to the fact that you did not pass my contact number to Channel NewsAsia when they were looking for a die-hard PAP supporter. I would have loved to be interviewed about my unwavering support for the steadfast and unchanging political party.

I write to you today, nevertheless, to address a concern that many Singaporeans have: the population size. It has come to my attention that the government intends to study the ideal population size. Many people have said that the PAP government is a victim of its own success (let’s not quibble about what the success is at this point), and I’m worried that Singapore may already be overpopulated because of the government’s foreign talent policy, which has been wildly popular (with foreigners).

In the event that Singapore has already become overpopulated, the leaders of Singapore must, as always, be able to do the right thing, which is not necessarily (i.e. necessarily not) the popular thing. As a citizen who believes in the PAP’s call for constructive suggestions, I would urge the PAP to promptly set up a Committee for Mass State-Sanctioned Population Management, which I believe is necessary for Singapore’s deficiencies as a nation.

If Singapore is overpopulated, the government must take decisive steps to manage the population size and this involves the removal of redundant citizens. It is necessary that the elimination is limited to only citizens for there is no way the state can target foreigners without risking military conflicts. Although I have full confidence in Singapore’s defense capabilities, it just isn’t practical to risk the GDP by going to war when a much simpler solution is at hand. The state should not eliminate Permanent Residents either since we still want to convince them to become citizens so that they would continue to contribute to Singapore’s economic growth.

Having established that we must only eliminate Singapore citizens when the island is overpopulated, one question that may arise is which ones to remove. It would be easy if the number of persons that need to be eliminated is equal to the number of Singapore citizens (sans the members the PAP government and their families). However, the likelihood is that the number of people we need to remove is smaller than the number of eligible people, and we do not want to eliminate too many people because losing one workhorse too many is detrimental to the country’s economic growth. Hence, I propose that the following groups of people get eliminated first:

1)      The elderly who are a burden to the state. Naturally, MPs, ministers, minister emeriti, and multi-millionaires are excluded. We can then stop worrying about whether to send them to retirement villages overseas or not.

2)      Those who are genetically predisposed to whining about the government. These people are disruptive forces in society and there’s no point keeping them.

3)      Adults who have been unemployed for three or more consecutive months and those who accumulated a period of unemployment amounting to five months or more in a period of 2 years. It has been scientifically proven that such people are lazy and are waiting to be fed by the government even though they have been told time and again that there is no free lunch in this beautiful island.

After the first cycle of eliminations has been completed, there is still work to be done. After all, the population must be maintained—not necessarily at a constant, but at a number ideal for economic growth. This number will vary from year to year. Given the current trend, we can safely say that Singaporeans are unwilling to procreate. The Committee for Mass State-Sanctioned Population Management must then ensure that people procreate. I suggest that every citizen should henceforth be given Elimination Credits. Every year that passes after a citizen’s eighteenth birthday without a baby registered as his/her offspring will gain the citizen 100 Elimination Credits. These Credits will be subject to a 5% per annum interest rate. Compounded. (The Committee will have to decide if NSFs are to be exempted during full-time National Service.) At any given year, citizens who are 55 and above will be due for elimination, and the citizens with the highest Elimination Credits (relative to others who are of the same age as them) will get the highest priority to be eliminated. The exact number to be eliminated will depend on the ideal population size determined by the Committee for Mass State-Sanctioned Population Management. The rest, because of their contribution to the production of babies, will get to continue contributing to the economy till Nature decides that they are an economic burden.

Of course, with every great policy, it could become too successful. There might be too many babies made in any given year after the implementation of the policy. Nevertheless, it is always better to work with a surplus. The excess babies will, I propose, be cryogenically frozen and we will tap into these reserves when the need arises—and when technology allows us to do so without killing them. Those who are not frozen will get a chance to contribute to Singapore’s economic growth.

We must leave no stone unturned. We have to remember that there are homosexuals in our society who do not seem to be interested in activities that would lead to procreation. Given that we are all open-mindedly conservative in this day and age, I would propose that the government should pair male homosexuals with female homosexuals for the purpose of procreation. Given that the government has always been magnanimous, they could be given a choice between procreating naturally without any risk of going to Hell and procreating through artificial insemination. As with the rest of the population, homosexuals will accumulate 100 Elimination Credits per year for every year past their eighteenth birthday if they fail to procreate within that year. In Singapore, we believe strongly in equality.

With such policies in place, population size will never be a problem. We will no longer need to rely on foreign talents. It is, after all, a little strange that we keep emphasizing that we cannot rely on others and yet keep bringing others in to rely on them.

Mr. Lee See Nao

%d bloggers like this: