opulation of 5m, 5.5m, 6m, 6.5m or 7m ?
First, we need adequate and efficient infrastructures in such a
compact island. Also, we need cheaper and greener energy, and more
importantly new sources of food supply and potable water that is
affordable to all, especially those who are poor and struggling to
make a living.
On food to feed a population of 5.75m (midway between 5 and
6.5m), I have to refer interested forumers to my comments on Jilin
investments by Temasek Holdings (see below). It is also available
at my blog:
http://tan-koktim.blogspot.com/2010/...s-in-huge.html
and
Facebook: tankoktim
Also at Google docs, the link is:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1_JCk-GUuX1qXkhP414iK1WN02ptKpJ-esSQxzlgzxnk&hl=en#
=======================
Temasek Holdings’ investments in a huge farm project in Jilin,
China
Sharing and inviting comments on what I wrote to the government and
the media on the subject matter.
Quote:
I refer to the media reports that Temasek Holdings will invest in a
huge China farm project, which will be a proposed super farm of
1,450 sq km that will be named China-Singapore Jilin food zone with
land twice the size of Singapore.
In my email of 25 July 2002 [see below], I suggested to the
Singapore government to invest in overseas farms, forestry, etc.,
and not just in concrete and steel in office buildings, hotels,
industrial estates, or in banks, businesses or telco companies,
etc.
It is not too late for GIC and TH to look into more such
investments by parking a few hundred millions of dollars here and
there to invest in non-concrete projects.
We should invest strategically by putting our eggs in more baskets
and to widen our sources of food supplies in the long term.
The news of the Jilin investment last week is a long wait for me as
my suggestion to the government went back not just 10 years but to
as far back as October 1990. > >
============
MCDS Feedback > hoo.co.uk> > Unit/MCDS/[email protected] >
> > >
Subject: > More freedom, fewer safety nets, will help
Singapore grow >
25 July 2002
> Dear Sirs, > >
I refer to “More freedom, fewer safety nets ‘will help Singapore
grow’ ” (Straits Times, July 25th) and it reminds me that there is
no absolute freedom in any aspects of the human life. Very few
people understand this. > >
In the Remaking of Singapore, we want the Govt to leave no stone
unturned, not even the CPF sacred cow. > > But when the Govt
announced the coming changes in CPF, those affected voiced against
it strongly.
It is all about on which side of the bread we want the butter to be
applied. No one can have the cake and eat it. > >
Govt has made many policy changes over the years. Some they got it
right but not all. They have to pull the brakes and change course
completely for some. >
However, on the whole, the Govt has done well. To err is human.
However, it is wise to listen carefully, consult and not lose touch
with the ground. > >
In difficult times, the art of Govt is about how to bring down the
costs of basic daily necessities. It will carry alot of political
weight when such issues are addressed to calm nerves. >
>
Many of us including some young MPs cannot remember the Welcome
Club of the 1950s. We must not lose sight of that chapter of our
history in nation building.
It is still relevant to affluent Singapore today if we wish to
continue to grow well economically. >
> I am glad the AVA has provided Bintan and Baatam with
technical support in agriculture. More should be done.
I wrote about this in Oct 1990 that we should invest in areas
around our regions to ensure we have steady, cheap and reliable
sources of supply for our basic food needs. We have invested in
poultry, pig husbanding and pawn farming in many countries.
The Govt will say that this be best left to the private sector.
However, there is a strategic factor in such investments and the
Govt should not rely solely on the private sector, which has only
one aim and that is to make profits. >
> It is still not late as I wish to bring forth again > what
I recommended many years ago: >
> a) invest in rice, fish and vegetables farming to ensure such
farming activities can thrive overseas as it is important to our
own survival as we need a steady source of food supplies. >
> b) help by giving the needed capital for fertilisers, farming
machines and research in improving crops quality and yields. A firm
foundation in farming will help feed the host nation too, a win-win
situation as there will be less instability in the region when the
host nations are fed, and at the same time ensuring we provide them
a steady market for their produce. Terrorism will not rear its ugly
heads so often.
Investments in factories and buildings are important aspects, it is
a norm a trend, but it will not feed a nation in a downturn like
what we see in Indonesia today. There is social unrest when
factories are empty affecting all.
We should not put too many eggs in one basket. Countries like Laos,
Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, they are hungry for investments to
upgrade their farms. The World Bank can only do that much. But we
enter into such investments for different sets of reasons, and it
is for the betterment of everyone. >
c) Invest in deep sea fishing. We consume thousands of tons of fish
each year.
We may not have the expertise and a blue-ocean fishing fleet, but
we can invest in fishing vessels, build them here if we can and
equip them with sophisticated fishing gears and have them manned by
foreign crew. We can provide them a ready market for the catch.
> >
No one owes us a living. We may invest in high-tech industries but
we should not lose sight of the traditional areas, which are
required to ensure a steady supply of our basic food needs at the
lowest cost possible. Both the private sector and the government
should unite in joint investments, which would benefit us as well
as the investee countries. >
> d) in addition we should balance and invest in some long term
projects. Examples, joint ventures to open up land around the world
to plant pine and teak forests, etc. It will help both the
environment to stay green, and provide the needed material
resources for future generations as trees will take years to
mature.
It does not need much upkeep and maintenance of the trees, and the
future value of money in such investments will be protected. The
initial investments will not be in hundreds of millions of
dollars.
It is wise to spread our investments for the sake of our survival
as a nation and for future generations. >
>’Unquote”