Slashdot Mirror


Singapore To Stop Adding Cars to City From February 2018 (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Singapore, among the world's most expensive places to own a vehicle, will stop increasing the total number of cars on its roads next year. The government will cut the annual growth rate for cars and motorcycles to zero from 0.25 percent starting in February, the transport regulator said on Monday. "In view of land constraints and competing needs, there is limited scope for further expansion of the road network," the Land Transport Authority said in a statement on its website. Roads already account for 12 percent of the city-state's total land area, it said. Smaller than New York City, land in Singapore is a precious commodity and officials want to ensure the most productive use of the remaining space. Its infrastructure is among the world's most efficient and the government is investing $21 billion more on rail and bus transportation over the next five years, the regulator said.

58 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And again everyone refuses to identify the root cause of the problem here, which is overpopulation.

    Overpopulation is the root cause of all our environmental problems, only one of which is lack of space.

    1. Re:overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Basic human instinct dictate reproduction over anything else. So it's no wonder people, including many intelligent ones, rationalize unlimited population growth. Often discussion of population control is downplayed or not even mentioned as a way of reducing environmental impact despite it being the most effective.

      Population growth at all costs is a nature induced group-think. Hopefully, humans will evolve to realize that unlimited growth isn't sustainable nor desirable. Though, some say not to worry, since nature (volcanoes, asteroid, etc) and/or war (fighting over resources and land) will address that. A depressing thought. I'm already well into middle age, and likely won't personally experience that.

    2. Re: overpopulation by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you can show up in some locality and by mere presence claim welfare, that doesn't work.

      It can if the countries have a treaty in place to share the cost of a migrant's social insurance for the first few years after migration.

    3. Re:overpopulation by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Basic human instinct dictate reproduction over anything else.

      That's what is going to have to change. One way or another.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:overpopulation by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Denial is a serious problem.

      My government in Australia is eagerly encouraging more people come here at massive, incredible detriment to the local job and housing market.
      It's madness.

    5. Re:overpopulation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Developed countries tend to have birth rates below replacement level (which causes its own problems). With increasing access to health care and education for women, the population will level off and start to decline,

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Confused.. by sqorbit · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was confused a bit on how this was managed. I decided to pull up the Wikipedia article on Singapore. Here is the exact quote from Wikipedia "Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government." I'm sure there is someone out there with a higher intelligence that might be able to explain that. I need a aspirin for my headache after reading that twice.

    --
    Sent from my TARDIS
    1. Re:Confused.. by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      or you could just edit the wikipedia article and delete all the difficult words

    2. Re:Confused.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Massive taxation on cars is how it is managed:

      https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/owning-a-vehicle/costs-of-owning-a-vehicle/tax-structure-for-cars.html

      I assume the next step will be to just ban car dealerships and imports, because the taxation hasn't stopped people buying cars, even if the taxes quadruple the price.

      A more progressive government would look how desperate people are to buy cars and just figure out how to invest that money into building UP. Like roads on top of roads. If people want cars this badly, and you can even force them to buy electric cars so the pollution factor is nil, then just let them have them and use the taxes to solve the problem economically.

      But I'm crazy like that because I don't have a hate-on against cars because they're cars. I just don't like pollution, and with electric cars, that problem is solved (assuming you get your power from a clean source).

    3. Re:Confused.. by _merlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are a limited number of private vehicle registrations available. When a registration becomes available (due to someone's registration lapsing, or the number of registrations being increased), they first look at needs-based assignment (e.g. if someone with a disabled family member has made and application), and if it isn't allocated that way they auction it.

      Most of the people buying vehicle registrations at auction for ridiculous prices really don't need a car, they just want it as a status symbol. Raising the price just makes it more exclusive. The city's really to small to handle any more private vehicles, it makes sense to stop increasing the number of vehicle registrations available.

      Building roads on top of roads isn't a solution - how do you get people on and off these stacked roads at their destinations? How does it do to the properties alongside the stacked roads? Singapore is already at a point where the vast majority of people don't need a car at all.

    4. Re:Confused.. by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      I did that once and the result was "Mostly harmless".

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Confused.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      or you could just edit the wikipedia article ...

      Good luck with that.

      Try editing Wikipedia and let us know how it works out for you.

      Odds are you'll be reverted in minutes, especially if your writing conflicts with the views of some basement-dwelling, Wikipedia-page-guarding troll that claims "ownership" of that page.

    6. Re:Confused.. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like roads on top of roads.

      Your solution is to block out the sun?

      The problem is supporting cars without destroying the cities. The experience in the US is that it's just not possible, you can do one or the other. Try to shoehorn cars into cities and replan them around cars, and you end up destroying the cities by removing walkability, and significantly reducing the attractiveness of city living. Your "Roads on top of roads" solution has been part implemented by various cities, but it has limits, not least what I just said - you'd be literally blocking out the sun at street level, creating a miserable place to live.

      The solution is to accept that cities aren't a car friendly place, and cars aren't city friendly, and to plan accordingly. Build parking lots on the edges of cities and create good, quality, transit for intracity transportation.

      I don't have a hate-on against cars because they're cars

      It's easier for car nuts to demonize people who like cities as having "hate ons" than address the very real practical issues related to creating "car friendly cities." The fact is, they just don't work. The solution isn't the American "Well ban cities then and force everyone to drive!" BS, it's to create a multitude of spaces and let people decide for themselves what tradeoffs they want. Want to live in a city? Give up the car. Want a car? Live in the suburbs.

      Whenever I suggest giving people choices might be an option, I inevitably get a "UR FORCING ME TO WALK!" rant, which in all honesty, is similar to your own. But the solution isn't to transcend rationality. Yeah, suburbs in SG are out of the question, so in this one instance, cars are just not going to cut it. Maybe the markets can come up with another way to create personal vehicles that'd be compatible with Singapore's unique situation. But for now, no, I don't think anyone's going to say that your right to drive outranks the right of everyone to see sunlight.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Confused.. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      quote from Wikipedia "Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government." I'm sure there is someone out there with a higher intelligence that might be able to explain that.

      In short, they are a totalitarian gov't, or what Americans often colloquially call "commies".

      Singapore more or less pioneered the concept of what some call "capitalistic communism", and China shortly followed. Basically the centralized government allows a degree of capitalism, but keeps a close watch on it and meddles with companies from time to time as it sees fit.

      The country has elections, but they are mostly for show: the candidates are pre-selected by the central party and are just figure-heads with no real power. Plus, there's no free-press nor free-speech. It's a fake democracy. (Some argue USA is drifting that way also as a plutocracy.)

    8. Re:Confused.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Massive taxation on cars is how it is managed:

      Errr no. Massive taxation disincentives it but it's not "how it's managed". They simply refuse registration beyond a certain number. That's how it is managed.

      I assume the next step will be to just ban car dealerships and imports, because the taxation hasn't stopped people buying cars, even if the taxes quadruple the price.

      No need. People will still need to replace existing cars, there isn't a ban on cars, just a ban on increase. The taxation will remain high or maybe even go higher to further incentivise people not to replace their old car and thus hand back the registration.

      A more progressive government would look how desperate people are to buy cars and just figure out how to invest that money into building UP.

      No. A progressive government realises that if your entire country is less than 25km wide there's no reason for anyone to own a car at all and would draft up a plan to slowly abolish them completely in favour of a well built public transport network.

      even force them to buy electric cars so the pollution factor is nil

      Pollution is generally not the concern in a country where it is impossible to expand road structure without destroying the city. More cars are.

    9. Re:Confused.. by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whenever I suggest giving people choices might be an option, I inevitably get a "UR FORCING ME TO WALK!" rant, which in all honesty, is similar to your own.

      People in general don't understand systems that are outside their own personal experience. I frequently talk to American colleagues and they are all dumbfounded when I tell them that I only ever drive to work, and only because it's 40km. I have never driven my car into my own city, I rarely do the shopping with it even when its belting down rain, and short of driving to another country I also don't take it anywhere, and even I often take a train.

      Cities are designed in ways that suit certain modes of transport. My local supermarket is 600m away. The next one (much larger one) is 1.1km in the other direction. I typically go to the much larger one and have the choice of walking (1.3km ~13min) / cycling (1.3km ~5min) or driving (4km ~10min). To get in the city centre I could drive which takes about 35min, or I could cycle which takes about 20min.

      This doesn't make sense to most Americans as American cities are designed primarily with the car in mind. Public transport, bike ways, and general city planning to prevent people having to make long trips for basic needs comes a distant second to big roads, highways, and plenty of available parking in every direction.

    10. Re:Confused.. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Your solution is to block out the sun?

      Then we will drive in the shade!

      In all seriousness, I've visited Singapore several times -- a car would be a complete and total pain. As far as an edge of city park and ride, the "suburbs" are in a different country. Thus the most useful would be ones at the closest MRT lines to Malaysia (where people actually do need cars). To that end the next subway line (Thompson East Coast line - brown line on the map) will be built right to the checkpoint.

      The closest thing to suburban-ish areas of Singapore are ones with automated peoplemover-type systems to circulate everyone around large apartment blocks (the grey lines on the MRT map).

    11. Re:Confused.. by fisted · · Score: 1

      Doing that now and then on the German Wikipedia, where your changes don't even appear to the public until looked at and approved by some Wikipedia neckb^H^H^H^Hazi^H^H^Hinjas.

      It could be that your edits suck.

    12. Re:Confused.. by lokedhs · · Score: 1
      They have that in a few places in Singapore and it's not a very nice view: https://www.google.com.sg/maps...

      I think there is a reason why they're not doing more of it.

    13. Re:Confused.. by lokedhs · · Score: 1

      In Singapore, most of electric power comes from fossil fuel plants, so electric cars are much less environmentally friendly compared to places which use more renewables or nuclear.

    14. Re:Confused.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I was confused a bit on how this was managed. I decided to pull up the Wikipedia article on Singapore. Here is the exact quote from Wikipedia "Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government." I'm sure there is someone out there with a higher intelligence that might be able to explain that. I need a aspirin for my headache after reading that twice.

      Translation: it's not described exactly the same as the US system, but I can't be arsed to spend thirty seconds on Google looking up a couple of unfamiliar words.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Re:What does this mean? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chewing gum is banned in Singapore, I hope you are chewing that gum somewhere else. If not you could face a $700 file.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  4. NYC Taxicab Medallions Come to Mind by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    And only the rich will be able to afford a car in Singapore.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:NYC Taxicab Medallions Come to Mind by judoguy · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the case already. They control car numbers by having a very expensive fee. They adjust it up or down to meter the number of cars in Singapore.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  5. Dont think commoners would even notice it by Daneel+Olivaw+R.+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lived that for four years, exceptional public transport (dare I say best in the world)... also the taxi fares are dirty cheap.

  6. Cars becoming more precious by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    So the punishment for vandalizing cars would by upped from six strokes of cane, for guilty pleas, to 12. For non guilty pleas it will go up from 12 strokes to 24. It also provides for a process to show respect for foreign heads of state by reducing the number of strokes by 33%.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. Re:What does this mean? by Daneel+Olivaw+R.+ · · Score: 2

    bit over-rated, one of those things about which they are not very strict about. Brought them in from Malaysia by mistake, the border police just smiled and let me pass...

  8. Re:What does this mean? by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 2

    Naw, dude. It's medical gum. Brought to you by Wrigley's.

  9. Re:What does this mean? by careysub · · Score: 4, Informative

    It means that are capping the inventory of cars in the city. You can buy a new car, but it must replace an existing car.

    Singapore's road system in entirely built out. All of the island is urbanized. And the effective capacity of a finite, fixed capacity road system is also finite and fixed. They have decided that they have now reached capacity.

    Other urbanized islands do this. The number of vehicles in Avalon, Catalina Island is also fixed.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  10. Re:What does this mean? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    You can't just go out and buy a car in Singapore. Rather, you need to get permission to own the car first. My wife lived over there for a few years, so I've heard some of this stuff from her, but take it with a grain of salt, since my recollection is rusty.

    From what I recall, Sings are required to puttheir names on a waiting list if they want to own a car. I can't remember if it's first-come-first-served or a straight-up lottery system, but once their name is pulled they have to pay a massive fee (equivalent to several tens of thousands of USD), and it's only then that they're allowed to purchase and import a car. Their ownership license (which has an actual title, but which I'm forgetting at the moment) is only good for something like 10 years, at which point they need to pay the fee again.

    Because of the incredibly high fees, most people don't bother importing regular commuter cars like what you'd see on the road in the US or Europe, let alone hanging onto them until they're unmaintainable. Instead, if they're going to be paying something like $30K or $40K just to be allowed to own a car, plus the cost of the car, plus the cost of shipping it to Singapore, they tend to figure that they may as well go big. On top of that, if they're paying that much every ten years, regardless of what car they're driving, then they may as well bring in a new car each time. My wife was saying that it was rare you'd ever see a car older than 10 years.

    They actually have a similar system in place for owning your own apartment, from what I recall, though that wait list is even longer.

  11. You don't really need them by mccalli · · Score: 2

    People who have been there or who live there know this - the private car ownership thing is just not the same. It's a reasonably small city, and has excellent public transport or taxis. I've been several times, I've never been in a private car there.

    Don't compare this to the UK or US - it's a completely different situation, and it would seem to make sense to me.

    1. Re:You don't really need them by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To put this into perspective, 2 people could live in the middle and work at distant opposite sides of the country and still quite comfortably cycle to work within the hour. Or a more likely scenario: People can just walk to work. The country is tiny.

    2. Re:You don't really need them by judoguy · · Score: 1

      People who have been there or who live there know this - the private car ownership thing is just not the same. It's a reasonably small city, and has excellent public transport or taxis. I've been several times, I've never been in a private car there. .

      I have and my friends paid a small fortune for the privilege of having it.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  12. Re:What does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Big deal. I live in California and I cannot..

    - Drink beer on the beach without getting fined.
    - Publicly drink without getting fined.
    - Hang out after hours without getting harassed by police.

    I can do all three in Singapore.

    They may have some crazy laws but California takes the cake.

  13. Copy Paste by XSportSeeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, if you are going to copy paste the article anyways, better put the parts people will be asking questions about:
    "These changes are not expected to significantly affect the supply of permits since the quota is determined largely by the number of vehicle deregistrations, the regulator said. The limit on vehicle growth rate will be reviewed again in 2020."

  14. It's the future of urban transportation by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    Efficient and plentiful public transport, plenty of bicycle lanes, little to no private cars.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  15. They already had negative growth rates by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Singapore has tightly controlled car volumes for decades in no small part by its utterly oppressive tax scheme. Cars have long been just a luxury for the upper class, and the overall number of vehicles on the island had already been falling across all vehicle categories anyway. This completely theoretical reduction of a non-existent growth rate from 0.25% to zero is on a population of less than a million vehicles (so less than 2.5k/year), and they're going to reevaluate the "reduction" in less than 3 years. I don't see how this changes much if anything in the real world.

  16. Singapore Freedom by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Singapore is the kind of place where 'adding cars' would be worded in a way that indicates that it is the responsibility of 'authorities' to increase the number of cars on the road.

    Social harmony is very, very important in Singapore. I am surprised there isn't an approved list of vehicle colors. Red and Black cars are permitted, but Red can only be used for official vehicles, and only several very expensive models can be 'added' that are finished in the color black. Teal and 'mustard' colored cars will be the norm, because those are the colors deemed less jarring to the eye.

  17. Re:What does this mean? by alex67500 · · Score: 1

    *swoosh* ?

  18. Re:My guess is... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hardly anyone will notice, since they only have 12~14 cars per 100 people in Singapore (different sources give slightly different numbers) and they have a world-class public transit system which makes car ownership more of a hassle than it's worth.

    Here in Taipei it's similar, but less so... Overall car ownership in Taiwan is about twice that of Singapore, but that includes a ton of rural area, which Singapore lacks. In a big city with excellent public transit, there's really no need for a car. Hell, I even gave away my scooter a few years ago.

    I'd say the bulk of the traffic in Taipei is: a) local "fleet" vehicles like taxis, buses, delivery vans; b) commuters to and from the surrounding 'burbs; c) scooters, motorcycles, bicycles, etc.. Commuters in the 'burbs tend to have a designated parking space at their apartment block, and another designated space at their employer in the city. Commuters who live in the city are far less likely to have a designated parking spot at home*, so they may spend half an hour looking for one when they get home from work. Major PITA.

    OTOH, with public transit you can get all the way across town in under 45 minutes for $1~2 USD, or you can cut that time in half (depending on traffic) by taking a taxi for about $8~12 USD.

    I do enjoy driving -- growing up in Iowa, I drove all the time, from age 14 -- but living in a city like Taipei, I'm quite happy NOT owning a car, or any motor vehicle, for that matter.

    * Due to land availability, a higher percentage of residential housing in Taipei is "old construction" from the days when common folk didn't own cars. Newer construction (say, the last 30 years) tends to always include parking, but there's been more new construction in the open lands outside the city, and since the rent tends to be cheaper, a lot of people live there.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  19. Re:What does this mean? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    It's a tiny little island. To buy a car, you must first win an auction for a car registration (maybe the wrong word). They allow cars in based on the design capacity of the road system. To date, they have been adding to the road capacity and thus increasing the number of registrations that they auction off. Now they have decided to stop expanding the capacity of the roads and limit the total number of registrations to the current amount.

    Fortunately for the locals, the public transit system is pretty fantastic.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  20. Re:What does this mean? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of people don't actually "own" their apartment, but instead lease it from the state with a term of 99 years. They do buy and sell the leases as if they were real estate, though. The government owns almost the entire island and builds most of the housing. Before you get too indignant, see how long you can live in your own house in the US without paying the government your rent, er, property tax :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  21. Re:What does this mean? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    Just to be clear, I wasn't intending to be or sound indignant. Measures like that are absolutely necessary when you're dealing with a resource that limited.

  22. I agree by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    Singapore - the best example of how sometimes you need an authority to decide in favor of group rights over individual rights. Too much freedom can be a curse.

    1. Re:I agree by judoguy · · Score: 1

      Singapore - the best example of how sometimes you need an authority to decide in favor of group rights over individual rights. Too much freedom can be a curse.

      And this is how it starts. Fascism in 4, 3, 2....

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  23. Re:What does this mean? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Ah, sorry, that did read kind of hostile even with the smiley. Despite directly replying to you, the "you" in that sentence was directed to everyone :)

    Despite my libertarian tendencies, I actually think the Singapore model works pretty well. People from a very wide range of income levels and ethnicities are essentially forced to live amongst one another. The people there definitely have their complaints, and their practice of busing in huge numbers of Malay laborers everyday distorts the picture significantly. But they do have a pretty good handle on things like mixing low-income housing with market-rate housing, preventing the growth of ghettos/slums, and to some extent rich people fleeing social problems.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  24. Re:What does this mean? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    Ah, sorry, that did read kind of hostile even with the smiley.

    No offense taken! I read it as the kind comment it was originally intended to be. The smiley did its job well. Sorry for coming across defensively, when all I meant to do was set the record straight about my own thoughts. :)

  25. Re:What does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's basically most of the united states. Other than New Orleans and Las Vegas, I don't know any other cities in the US that allow public drinking.

  26. Re:What does this mean? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    There are a few more, as I found out while looking one time. Most are limited to specific tourist districts, though. Wiki article. Note that almost all of the linked mention that you have to have your alcohol in a plastic container, so it's still illegal to have a bottle of wine at a picnic in public.

  27. Re:What does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Note that almost all of the linked mention that you have to have your alcohol in a plastic container, so it's still illegal to have a bottle of wine at a picnic in public.

    Finally, wine boxes win!

  28. Re:My guess is... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Hardly anyone will notice, since they only have 12~14 cars per 100 people in Singapore

    People will notice, specifically because they are rare. This makes them powerful status symbols. This change will make car ownership even more exclusive. Singapore chicks will definitely notice if you drive a nice car (that likely cost $120k or more after taxes and import duties).

  29. Re:My guess is... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    True. Indeed, I'd say a lot of car owners here in Taipei already see it largely as a status symbol, but I didn't get into that because my post was already getting long. However, I think there's a generational change underway.

    Thirty years ago, Taiwan was still riding the "Asian Tiger" economic high, and getting a car was a huge marker for success. But a lot has happened since then, such as the internet... but more importantly Taipei made some important investments in public transit and city planning. They now have one of the best subway systems in the world (also one of the most expensive), and with dedicated lanes and GPS tracking, the bus system has become even more convenient and reliable. For people who came of age in the last 10 or 15 years, I think the idea of car ownership has moved down a few rungs on the ladder of priorities.

    I could be wrong of course, but even in the West, with the advent of self-driving cars and ride-sharing apps, the rate of car ownership is already starting to decline.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  30. Re:My guess is... by tepples · · Score: 1

    In a big city with excellent public transit, there's really no need for a car.

    What's "excellent public transit"? Is it better than once an hour, nothing at night, nothing at all on 58 days of the year, and nothing at all on Saturdays in outlying areas (source)?

  31. Literally Hitler by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    Turns out that policies to limit population growth are pretty unpopular, and if you even suggest them you are "Literally Hitler", which is why it will never happen unless you are Communist China.

    Well it is pretty hard for a democratic society to legislate for people to die, and harder to legislate for one-child policies.
    Same deal with banning the sending of food aid to needy people - after all - once poor people have been allowed to live, they'll only breed more of themselves and create more of the conditions for entrenched poverty.
    The best method governments had for reducing population was to leave smoking laws in place, not force people to wear bicycle helmets and seatbelts etc, leave dangerous playground equipment intact, take away many operational health and safety regulations etc.

    We cotton-wool wrap ourselves so well these days.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:Literally Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      harder to legislate for one-child policies.

      China's "one-child policy" was basically a tax break that punished you with poverty for having more than one child. Everyone above median and below 0.1% in the US is living under a zero-child policy.

      Day care, bidding your way into a decent school district away from people who are violent and stupid, fees for various "fixers" coaches and therapists if you have any disputes with that school district, ordinary medical and dental, and college savings will alter your life compared to zero-child just as much as the Chinese tax incentive would alter your life if you refused to abort the second pregnancy. Of course, you can still have your one child against policy in the US and without paying, unlike China, because there is a new even stronger punishment: if you don't pay up, your child will grow up in the "other America" of the replacement population of refugees, illegal immigrants, and structurally unemployed. The price for avoiding downward mobility, except for the richest one in a thousand, is absurd. For example, college assistance is based on your parents' income, so poor children have much better opportunity than median children whose parents refuse to pay. This was not true of the price of the first child in China, which had what upward mobility you can get in China without bankrupting the parents.

      so, no, it's not difficult to enact a zero-child policy in a democracy. In fact, it's done, and it's working: Europe is "welcoming" immigrants to save their pension plans because even a much weaker version of the American zero-child policy is so extremely effective, and America which has gone much further has become an idiocracy where only people below median are breeding.

  32. Re: What does this mean? by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Seriously? I go to Singapore all the time â" never had any issues with police or the laws. If anything it seems to be quite lax in a lot of areas.

  33. Re:What does this mean? by mykro76 · · Score: 1

    Not exactly. You can't buy or sell gum in Singapore - but you can bring it in for personal use. You can chew the gum - just don't spit it out.

  34. Re:What does this mean? by lokedhs · · Score: 1
    I live in Singapore and I own a car.

    You can go and buy a car and drive away with it immediately. The resellers buy the licenses (COE) and include it with the car when you buy it.

    This makes the cars incredibly expensive, of course, but as long as you have the money it's not a problem. If you want to see just how crazy expensive cars here are, take a look at the main web site for buying cars: http://www.sgcarmart.com/main/...