Singapore, with no natural resources, small 'red dot', with
only a population of est 3.5million,and only 43 years
old, has rank 25th place, ahead of 152 other some bigger and
older, resource rich countries in the world, in a UN 2007/2008
survey.
Citizens, you can pop the champagne. Your hard work and tax
contributions had made a difference, and while we may not be
satisfied with our own lives for we are a go getter nation ever
seeking to be better than we can ever be, we can take comfort that
we had done well, as viewed and observed by others
impartially around the world, no less than UN.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
This post was posted in response to other threads that sought to
downplay and downcast with gloom and doom on our citizens' and
previous generations' efforts
Is this the best
production from a dearHunter's 1% inspiration - with 99%
perspiration in plagiarising and bastardising the well
arranged propaganda from some surveys ?
Singapore has been around since
1819, had limited self-rule since 1953, full self-rule by 1959 and
independence since 1965 - why should you start your historical
count on an ignominous date when Singapore was kicked out of a
wilfull merger with Malaysia through a sham Referendum that was
shamelessly conducted ?
Has Singapore performed in such
sterling manner compared to those countries behind its ranking at
25 ?
Why did you not compare Singapore
with similar size countries - in usuable land area even with
larger population size - such as Hong Kong which also has no
natural resources and dependent on the industry of its people
?
Hong Kong was colonised by Britain
in 1842, and given self-rule only in 1971 - yet according to your
UNDP score, Hong Kong had achieved a ranking of
21 despite the shorter history compared to
Singapore.
Incidentally, Singapore's
population is 4.5 million - {unless you clearly state that the
3.5 million are citizens only}; compared to Hong Kong's
larger population of 6.98 million {July 2007
est}.
Considering the quality of
environment influenced by human ingenuity to control the
carbon dioxide emission {CO2} - the index for Hong Kong in
2004 was 37.4; and the index for Singapore in 2004 was
52.2. {according to your UNDP reference}
How could this have happened
considering the long history in Singapore Garden City campaign, and
the tight regulation in vehicle and industrial emission
?
Both Hong Kong and Singapore have
a majority of the population being ethnic Chinese - how could the
score be so different given Singapore's longer political history in
self-governance ?
Have lies been told here, or facts
been twisted, or has the 99% perspiration by the 'dearHunter'
achieved nothing from his characteristic low inspiration
score of 1% ?
