Tag Archive | "total fertility rate"

PM Lee addresses heterosexual couples

PM Lee addresses heterosexual couples

Tags: , , ,

His Chinese New Year message essentially beckons them to do the nasty more frequently and keep the by-product.

The message is clear: Singapore needs more babies or else we are going to the dogs.

Lesser babies mean the economy will sag. Singaporeans by birth will be marginalised. We shall be reduced to eating our own shorts because we will be that worse off.

You see, Singapore’s total fertility rate has been dropping from 1.6 in 2000 to 1.15 in 2010, before going back up very slightly to 1.2 in 2011.

This means there will be lesser people in the future to be harnessed as slaves… no, I mean, resources who contribute to economic output and CPF.

The prime minister, therefore, urges everyone – Chinese Singaporeans, in particular – to bend their heterosexual partners over more often to give them a damn good seeing to.

After which they should keep and maintain the outcome.

This is because Chinese Singaporeans’ TFR has dropped from 1.43 to 1.08 over the same period from 2000 to 2011.

This, can only be described as a “plunge”, for the lack of a better word.

The rationale is that Singapore can no longer rely on immigrants, although this is the exact opposite of what was said before the General Election of 2011.

Oh well.

But as usual, there is no message for gay couples.

Nothing is being said about whether they can be considered a family unit partly because they have always been known to fail to meet the government’s traditional definition of a nuclear family – which is one man plus one woman, even though opposing sexes are no better at coexisting amicably enough than same-sex couples.

This is no surprise.

Check out The Straits Times list of 10 ways to boost the birth rate in Singapore that was published exactly one year ago.

Hey, seems like an exhaustive list, doesn’t it?

But what is conspicuously missing is the alternative idea to allow gay couples to adopt.

Oh wait. What are we talking about?

That’s right! The Straits Times is the national broadsheet that panders to the whims and fancies of the conservative, the mindless and the easily offended.

If nary a proposal for same-sex couples to adopt children is even mentioned, the Forum page editor will not hear the end of it as angry letters will be sent from all over the place.

A boycott will result. Circulation will tumble. Advertising rates will drop.

The pro-establishment press will cease to exist. The society will collapse.

We will eat our shorts. And die.

The end.

Big Brother the cause of low fertility rate

Big Brother the cause of low fertility rate

Tags: , , , ,

Read the original article that inspired this semi-fictitious piece here.

Singapore’s total fertility rate this year plunged to an all-time low of 1.01, prompting a new round of internal debate on why Singaporeans are not reproducing. One of the reasons cited by a person close to PM Lee’s inner circle, was the rapid proliferation of CCTVs on the streets, which have led to a loss of dark areas for couples to engage in private acts.

New Nation walked around Clarke Quay one night and found police cameras on major roadways, traffic junctions, carparks, street alleys, and lift landings.

When asked why they were not making out at Fort Canning, a young couple mentioned that they felt uncomfortable with the CCTVs pointing at their favorite spot beneath a large tree.

“Dude, some people might get turned on with exhibitionism, but we’re really not into that,” said Toby Ong, an interior designer.

His girlfriend, Yetta Ng also mentioned a fear of having their private moments leaked out on voyeurism-aggregator STOMP, as a reason why they’ll probably remain celibate until they can afford a place of their own.

Soaring property prices in recent years have postponed the plans of many couples to settle down and have children. Yet the problem lies deeper than that. Couples are simply not fucking enough because there isn’t any place to do it.

However, increased surveillance does have an upside. The Straits Times reported yesterday that despite the perceived invasiveness of more CCTVs, the overall consensus is that electronic surveillance has made residents feel safer and more peaceful.

In a joint study in 2003 by Northeastern University in the United States and Cambridge University in Britain, it was found that both CCTVs and street lights were better at reducing property crime than violent crime.

The study also concluded that cameras deter crimes more effectively than street lights in enclosed areas such as carparks, while in open public spaces, street lights were more effective.