In GE 2011, WP was still largely considered one of the underdogs and part of an "opposition collective" many seem to root for. Post GE 2011 however, the Worker's Party, given bigger shoes to fill, has in their purported lack of resonance in parliament, outright dismissal of an opposition collaboration and with rumoured arrogance toward online sentiments, taken on what I consider to be the place of the new popular kid in the playground, so much so that they have been unceremoniously deemed a potential "PAP in the making". There is a glimmer of truth in these accusations. For the liberal minded Singaporean, who have transcended the bounds of racism, homophobia and classism, decisions are easy to make on what is right and what is wrong. Why is progress taking so long? Why has 377A not yet been repealed? Why were foreign workers who went on strike dealt with so harshly when their grievances were in fact sound? Why have the government not apologized for the wrongful ISA arrests in the past?

And why? Why is the currently largest group of opposition MPs in parliament not speaking up passionately on any of these issues?

But in case we forget, though their Aljunid win was perceived as a monumental victory in the opposition camp, in parliament, WP remains grossly outnumbered. And while it is always awesome to see an opposition MP take the incumbent down a notch in parliament, it is also a sure bet that in a system which requires a vote, there is no speech, no personality that can yield results from sentiments alone. We have enough instances of fiery debates in parliament, it was entertaining, but it did nothing but disempower the majority at the lack of results and worse of all witness some of the most brutal incidences of bullying in parliament.

So unless we trust that the PAP majority now are neutral in parliament, to believe that 6 people can voice out and exact radical changes to our social fabric is asking for the moon to me. WP remains very much to me, as one of the underdogs, one that is slightly more ahead than the others, one that is not obligated to yield to any other gameplan by their own in this precarious venture as an opposition party in Singapore. It is a strategy that has not let them down.

It had me asking, amidst appeals for our politicians to connect with the ground, how many of us are connected to how the ground thinks and the psychology behind their bias and prejudice? How many of us are completely absolved from some form of conflict of fundamental beliefs between us and our families and friends and in turn some form of hypocrisy from trying to keep the peace. No one will fault me if I keep quiet to an elderly relative's racism, or an ex classmate's outright homophobia at a class gathering to avoid a dispute that will yield neither a convert nor an ally, yet we ask of such impartiality from an outnumbered group in parliament, where a wrong move will cause them more than just a bad time.

Perhaps some will find my correlation a little too extreme, but who we are ultimately shapes the future of our parliament. We vote in the representatives most suited to our set of beliefs, much as we hope that the politicians, our representatives in the house will think more like us, we too should have to think more like the politician and connect to the realities of society.

And the reality is that civil society with all its concerns is as outnumbered in real life as WP is in parliament. And picking a fight brazenly yields only in conflict, empty calories in the race toward a more involved society. The ideal, for me anyway, is a parliament representing all factions of society, MPs from various parties who differ in their concerns, but given an equal and unequivocal right to speak and be considered.

That won't happen with 6 MPs, or with the Worker's Party alone. It will require much more effort, persuasion and time by everyone who dreams of a better tomorrow.

Make no mistake, the WP deserves a great deal of the credit for a convincing win in what had been deemed to be a safe seat for the PAP.  Since it won Aljunied in a famous upset in 2011, it has built on its image as a fairly safe pair of hands for managing the town councils under its charge. Having more MPs in Parliament has also helped to increase the party’s visibility.  A MP caught in a sex scandal last year was ruthlessly handled, with the fallout scarcely affecting the party in the ensuing by-election. Behind the scenes, the party has developed a considerable grassroots and volunteer following, which it impressively mobilised for the last two by-elections.

But the party’s growth has been aided in good measure by the ruling PAP’s stumbles, which are beginning to appear with worrying frequency. The key one is that the party’s feel for the ground seems to have slipped markedly since the third generation of leaders took over in the early 2000s. Unhappiness over immigration and housing prices has festered because the PAP appears to presume a consensus over its economic agenda that may no longer hold. The government has not been able to come up with policy solutions to these vexing issues convincing enough for the electorate because fewer and fewer Singaporeans are wedded to the party’s growth-first approach.

The problem here is that the PAP’s organisation is essentially a fossilised relic of the 1960s. Power is concentrated exclusively in the hands of the central committee, with the rest of the party essentially hollowed out.  That is the very thing that prevents the party from renewing itself properly. Talent does not rise through the ranks – instead, the party is dependent on “parachute” candidates identified by the leadership. It does not help that the party’s grassroots organisation is nominally detached from the party – it is in reality a statutory board under the government – and the enthusiasm gap between it and the WP’s growing following only seems to be widening.

Furthermore, the overly centralised party structure compromises diversity. Voters have difficulty differentiating between the various PAP candidates, most of whom seem interchangeable with one another. That also makes it difficult for the party to reform itself: all the so-called next generation leaders brought in in 2011 are impeccable members of the establishment that have shown little inclination to question party doctrine.

The PAP’s woes reflect those faced at the national level.  The idea that Singapore needs an overwhelmingly dominant party in order to be governed effectively has been undermined over the past few years not only by growing discontent over government policies but by various scandals involving establishment figures. Sex scandals are likely to be interpreted as a sign of moral decadence, but the ruckus over the AIM affair (regarding possible irregularities in the sale of town council software developed with public funds to a PAP-related company) is something more worrying. For a party long thought to be above the taint of being self-serving, it could confirm the resentment of some that the establishment is taking advantage of its privileged position for its own ends.

It is not too late for the party to change. The PAP may never be as dominant as it was a decade ago, but it can stabilise its standing among the electorate by renewing itself in the spirit that first captured national prominence in the 1950s. Opening up the party to more diverse candidates, encouraging internal party democracy and nurturing a neglected grassroots organisation would go a long way towards restoring some of the party’s appeal. Things have to change in order to stay the same. But by doing so, it would also bring Singapore closer to a freer and more open system that is the norm in other democracies worthy of the name.

In the past, winning an election was straightforward.  It was always Lee Kuan Yew’s philosophy that the PAP should pick highly educated professionals, ex civil servants, generals – people whom he thought was the elite - people that the PAP believed the electorate would look up to. Never mind if he never served in the grassroots, or had any presence in the constituency. If the PAP said he was the elite and the best person for the job, the electorate believed them. Now ‘elite’ is a bad word.

In the past, one would never have imagined that a PAP candidate, a surgeon that the Prime Minister himself promised is destined for higher office, would lose an election to what the older generation would have thought of as a ‘less qualified’ candidate. In the past, one would never have imagined that the Prime Minister could turn up for an election rally, give it his all, and STILL lose the election.

That has all changed.

Everything that the PAP thought worked must now be fundamentally re-considered.

First, it must stop seeing itself as first and foremost policy makers and then a political party. Its experience in the last 4 decades of dominance was abnormal, partly made possible by a gargantuan of a man, Lee Kuan Yew. Such a figure that can lead a nation by his sheer singular vision, make an entire people bend to his will, is an occurrence that happens rarely in the annals of human history. The PAP cannot rely on all of this now. They have to first start winning elections the normal way, AND THEN start thinking of implementing policies. This is what any other political party in a functioning democracy takes for granted. The electoral dominance that its founder granted to the PAP has caused it to get things the other way round, which increasingly looks like the wrong way round. The PAP is singularly unprepared for a post-LKY era, and is paying the price for it. It must remember that it is a political party first and foremost and the party has to win election; its MPs have to be politicians as well as technocrats.

Secondly, it election formula must change. It cannot anymore parachute in someone it endorses, push out goodies during the election period, threaten the electorate of the consequences if they don’t vote for the PAP, and hope to win. This is 3rd world electioneering. As Singapore matures as a country, our electorate matures with it. The Singapore electorate is now a highly educated, highly demanding and plural one. The problem is that whilst the electorate has grown up, the PAP has not. It is still campaigning like it did in the 80’s, the 90’s and it simply does not work. In a mature democracy, campaigning is highly sophisticated work. It is an art. It is a science. Just look at the US, the UK, Australia and even Japan. There are media advisors, spin doctors, campaign strategists, sophisticated research going into each and every election and careful planning. The PAP has none. It still believes doing simply rolling up its sleeves and doing good work will win it elections. This is just naïve. The electorate has moved on; it is time for the PAP to catch up.

Thirdly, the PAP needs to re-discover the skill of pushing through unpopular policies it thinks is good for the good of the nation, and still win elections. This is very hard. Lee Kuan Yew could do it, but can the new generation of leaders? If it can’t then it needs to be popular rather than right. This is the bargain with the devil all politicians in popular democracies must make. The PAP may have to do the same.

The tragedy of all this is that nothing that is happening is new under the sun. We are following in exactly the same path as Western democracies. When political parties have to be popular to win elections, then technocratic policy making has to take a back seat. Politicians have to spend more time politicking then governing, always with one eye on the next election. We have inherited the Westminster system and we should expect very little different to arise from it. There will be 2 parties, one centre-right where the PAP has comfortably sat for 4 decades, and one centre-left, which the WP is moving inexorably into. With multi-cornered fights, people will vote tactically and the 3rd,4th, and other parties will be pushed into the political wilderness. In the end, 2 parties will take turns to govern, with one eye on making sure it wins the next election.

But where will this lead us? Can we end up any different from the countries which have the same fundamental political system as us? Or are we destined to the same fate, whether good or bad?

One can never know the future, but if there is one lesson the PAP will learn from the debacle of Punggol East on the night of 26th January 2013, it is a lesson that all politicians from developed democracies already know in their bones.

It is more important to be popular than to be right.

---------

The writer is a former Nominated Member of Parliament.

So, now with seven full Members of Parliament and two Non-constituency Member of Parliament, the onus is on the Workers’ Party to live up to these hopes.

“But we remain a small party,” says WP Chairman Sylvia Lim, dismissing the claim that Singapore has a two party system, implying that, really, we have a one-and-a-bit party system.

“This shows that Singaporeans want the government to work harder,” says Low Thia Khiang, WP Secretary General.

Actually, Mr Low, if people vote for you, it’s because they want you to work harder, and better. If they had wanted the PAP to work harder, and better, they would have voted PAP. Your job is not to help the PAP do a better job; it’s to show that you can do a better job than them.

The WP is like a small business that has won a big account from a giant corporation and now has to figure how on earth to scale up in time and meet expectations—which are now sky high. This kind of rapid success is awesome—and the WP deserves it—but can also be challenging.

As long as the mood of voters remains in this revolutionary high, the WP, and other opposition, can strike while the iron is hot. But at some point, the fire will cool and reality will bite, and any opposition in parliament will have to show that they can deliver the goods.

Grace periods don’t last long. Already rumblings were beginning to be heard that the WP Aljunied team hasn’t been pulling enough weight. The exposure of the AIM saga helped save them, in that respect.

It’s not easy for the WP. It is a much smaller party than the PAP. But if you pitch for a job, and you win it, you have to find a way to make it work.

I want - more than anything - to see a fairer, more open political playing field; and am thrilled and impressed by Lee Li Lian’s win in Punggol East.

The WP has a golden opportunity on their hands. It is perfectly situated in this moment of change for Singapore, and is on a roll.

So WP, seize the day, show that you can improve the lives of your constituents, show that you can hold your own in parliament, contribute to policies, groom future MPs and even ministers (yes)—and not only will 2016 be sweet grounds for you, your success will outlive the heat of the moment.

Mr Fernandez apparently must have missed the parade itself, or the truck which WP MPs – including Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Mohd Faisal – were on.

One therefore wonders if Mr Fernandez had taken the effort to ascertain what he believed before he wrote that letter.

Be that as it may, what is more unforgivable is the Straits Times publishing such a letter which clearly contains untrue assertions, and which – with a few click of the mouse – the Forum editor (Jack Hee) could have conducted his due diligence.

In the Straits Times’ own Through The Lens Facebook page, there was this picture which clearly showed Mr Faisal on the truck during the victory parade through Punggol East:

And on the Straits Times’ own Youtube channel, there was this video – “Workers' Party "thank you" parade at Rivervale Crescent” – which clearly again showed Mr Singh on the truck with the other WP MPs as well.

Here is a screenshot of it:

It is utterly appalling that the Straits Times would not only not ascertain facts – which it easily could have with its own reporters who were on the ground – but that it did not take special care before publishing an article which touched on what the Government has always viewed as a sensitive issue – the issue of race.

This is particularly unforgivable, given how the Straits Times itself has, over the past year or so, decried – in its editorials – the emerging ugly head of racism in Singapore. And this latest episode also comes not too long after the other incident involving the Straits Times online portal, STOMP, which deliberately reported a fake story about MRT doors not closing. Following that incident, Straits Times editor-in-chief, Mr Warren Fernandez, said:

“This is a very regrettable breach of our journalistic ethics. The credibility of our content is critical to our readers, and all of us in the newsroom. Upholding this is a duty of each and every member of the team. We will have to work to improve our print and online processes, to do right by our readers.”

[See here: STOMP - a cesspool of disgrace to citizen journalism.]

Singaporeans who value our cultural and ethnic diversity should condemn such unprofessional conduct by a national newspaper, and indeed some harsh words from the powers-that-be should be directed at the chief editor and the forum page editor.

The Straits Times owes the Workers’ Party a public and prominent apology for the publication of the letter by Mr Paul Anthony Fernandez.

That is the least it could do.

In the meantime, Singaporeans await the outcome of the police’s investigation into the Straits Times’ alledged illegal election poll published in its papers on 10 January.

Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we take the next step. I call on the government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home. So I call for a breather in this quest of growing the population and focus on improving the lives of Singaporeans and achieve that promised Swiss Standard of living for most Singaporeans first before we plan our next growth trajectory.

Taking Care of the Singaporean Core

I have a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens we are planning to add to our population. I don't see the necessity to be as aggressive when the key consideration of the population growth is the economy. We have already added too many new citizens and PRs and need time for integration and social cohesion to happen. Looking at history, our population grew from around 2.4m in 1980 to 3m in 1990 and then to 4m in 2000, reaching 5.3m last year. Just looking at the resident population alone, we grew the numbers from 2.3m in 1980 to 2.7m in 1990, 3.3m in the year 2000 and then to 3.8m last year. So in the last decade we added more than 1m to the resident population, and the in last 25 years, which is close to 1 generation of Singaporeans, we have added another close to 50% more to our resident population. I believe this must be the fastest rate of population growth in the world and I feel this is just too much for us to comfortably go back and build a national identity and social cohesion which was progressing very well till the 1990s. Adding another 500,000 to 800,000 more PRs and citizens as proposed by the white paper will be disastrous and add to our already difficult infrastructure and social problems.

If it is economic growth we want then let's just adopt the Dubai model of a transient workforce which will give us a lot more flexibility to manage numbers in the longer term. On PRs, today we already have too many of them and they are enjoying full citizen privileges without the citizens' responsibilities. For example;

- Far too many PR boys who skip NS when they turn 18. After enjoying the privileges they have a choice of not doing NS and then leave the country. I believe only around 30% of all PR boys do NS today. Well, our Singapore sons don't have a choice but to do NS, it is an office not to do it.

- PR children study at their International system schools sticking to their home cultures.

- PRs can buy HDB flats from the open market driving prices of HDB flats too high.

So I urge the government to reduce the number of projected new PRs and citizens just to the population replacement levels and be more selective and differentiate their privileges from citizens. I have a few suggestions for the government to consider;

• The government in the past couple of years has tried to draw the distinction between PRs and citizens by increasing school fees and healthcare fees for them. But I wonder would it not have been better to instead partially subsidize these same fees for Singapore citizens? So do it the other way round, reduce fees for Singaporeans not just increase for PRs.

• PR children must be made do national service - it should no longer be a choice and we should make it an offence if they don’t do it. We should not grant PRs to families who don’t commit their sons to National Service.

• HDB - if a PR buys a HDB flat from the open market, charge a levy of say $50k and allow them to sell only to Singaporeans. If the PR takes up citizenship within 5 years, we can refund the levy.

• Children of PRs should be made to study in our national schools so that we increase the chance of integrating them at the next generation.

• On the employment front, it is time we implement a Singaporean first hiring policy like what is done in some developed countries like Canada. Companies should show proof first that they were not able to fill a position with a Singaporean before they are allowed to hire a foreigner.

• Reconsider the dependents policy - I have come across a number of cases where our targeted one child from China brings in 2 parents who then bring 2 parents each as their dependents - Net is that we gain one young one child who we brought in for our future but also inherited 6 older people - making our ageing population issue worse not better.

I feel the differentiated privileges will separate the genuine ones from those who are here for a ride. We should grant PRs to those who are most likely going to take up citizenships so these differentiated privileges should not stifle our plans to attract quality PRs and new citizens.

This brings me to the point of how many Singaporeans are feeling about the presence of such huge numbers of new citizens, PRs and foreigners amongst our midst. First for housing - there is no doubt that the influx of foreigners in Singapore has driven up our property prices. PRs are buying HDB flats from the open market which drives up prices.

Just last week I had a dialogue session with my private estates residents and one of my residents complained that a new citizens recently bought a landed property in this old estate and was building a 3 and a half storey towering house. Well the, new citizen, the owner of the house was also present and when, I spoke with him during the tea session I found out that he was a new citizen formerly from China, just gained his citizenship and bought not 1 but 3 landed properties in Kebun Baru alone. I was surprised and saddened because many Singaporeans cannot afford to do the same, and this new citizen, no matter how he may have made his wealth is able to do so.

Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce feel demoralized because many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans. I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years I could afford a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns $2600, just $700 more than what I earned when I started. The mathematics is very simple, the cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum the last 27 years and even more, the cost of owning a HDB flat is did not just go up by 37% since 1985.

Finally, I am perturbed by the banquet analogy used by Minister Khaw. We are talking about lives of Singaporeans. Our banquet guests come for one night and leave when the function is over. There is no turning back when we grant PR and citizenships. We must be more exact about the numbers we want to add to the Singapore population and not plan on a basis of 'hoping we hit some number". Because if overdo things and end up with a population of more than 7m, it may be too late to stop the fast moving train of population growth when we fire up all the engines of growing the population. We missed the mark the last 10 years, and are already paying a high price for that mistake.

In my speech in this house in 2008 during the committee of supply debate on the population I urged the government to abandon the "the instant tree mentality" in trying to grow the population in response to the declining birth rates. At that time, I did not agree with the rate of growth pursued and we know the consequences and the hardship Singaporeans faced as a result of the rapid growth, Instant trees cannot grow strong roots and can be uprooted in difficult times. I once again urge the government to slow down and plan on reaching their population target over a longer time horizon. I don't think we can live with a 6.9m population in 2030. We may be able to handle it in 2050, no one really knows. Please abandon this 'instant tree" mentality as we cannot afford to make Singaporeans lives more difficult as a result. I rather we err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for planning misjudgements.

In conclusion, I would like to see us take a breather from re-growing our population again. We have too many problems as a result of the last breathtaking population growth rate. As a government we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us and that we are willing take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems, make their lives more comfortable, give them a better quality of life and show them that any future growth of population will not create similar social and cost of living problems. At this stage many Singaporeans from all walks of life don't have the confidence that we can handle another steep growth of the population, so let's not push it. I would like all of us, including the government to spend the time creating and environment that gives us confidence in our future and one where our young can see a sense of hope of opportunity and if we fail to instil a sense of hope and opportunity for our future generations, we will not be able to root them here and build a strong national identity and a strong nation. This is what building a strong Singapore core should entail. So let's delay all plans for further population growth for now.

Instead of aiming to take in 15,000 to 25,000 new citizens and 30,000 PRs each year to "ensure a pool of suitable potential citizens" and thinking of people in terms of labor inputs producing corresponding labor outputs, it would have focused a lot more on who we are bringing in. It would have been more sensitive to the fact that population growth per-se does not necessarily lead to economic growth, and that the nature and composition of population growth is as critical as its rate.

This is what decides whether Singapore will become a new nation of immigrants (as we have been), or an alien-nation; a hub, or a home.

This is also why immigration debates in many countries are centered on entry criteria more than quotas: should there be a more discriminate and selective admission system? What criteria should be emphasized? Should we consider using a points system, as countries like Australia and Canada have? How can an immigration system best maximize gains from population diversity and minimize cultural friction? Alas, nothing is mentioned in the plan beyond a "citizenship journey" and English courses run by the People’s Association and NTUC, as if putting people through one-off state-funded classes are going to solve complex problems of integration. Contrast that with more serious approaches taken towards integration of immigrants in Canada's white paper, and one realizes there is more than meets the eye to assimilation.

Misplaced priorities?

The irony that comes with a population policy driven by GDP growth is that it tries to serve ‘Singaporeans’ who don't even exist. The white paper is a long litany of construction plans to keep up with future increases in population, which is completely within policy control. In a somewhat perverse way, the plan is creating the very problem it is also trying to solve. As long as GDP growth is the key determinant of population policy (and it doesn't look like this mindset is going to change), then there will always be a need for population growth, and always a need for more houses, buses, trains, schools and hospitals to meet these demands.

The pursuit for growth, as long as we are on a hedonic treadmill, is endless. But there are real physical limits to how much a small island like ours can hold before sustainability becomes a problem, and real psychological limits to how much change a generation of people can take.  Especially for a small island state like Singapore, achieving economic growth through population growth means kicking the can further down the road: what happens in 2050 when the new Singaporeans and PRs we bring in also age? Furthermore, why use current tax dollars to finance the wellbeing and lifestyles of a massive influx of future immigrants, when there are so many pressing social spending, healthcare and cost of living concerns now? Who pays and who benefits?

A declining birth rate and greying population is not an easy demographic challenge to tackle, nor is it a problem unique to Singapore. But the approach that a government takes tells one a lot about its priorities. A population policy that places Singaporeans' welfare - as opposed to economic growth targets - at its heart would have been about children and the elderly. Japan, which confronts the same problem, except worse, has its population white paper centered almost exclusively on children and childcare support.

It is also striking how policy on coping with an aging population is completely absent in the paper despite the fact that it is the most important demographic problem a sound population policy should be addressing. By 2030, the number of citizens aged 65 years and above will triple to 900,000 by 2030; 1 in 5 of the population will be an elderly. How does the government see the old-age problem? The white paper implies that the old-age problem is not about the aged amongst us, but about the economy:

"For society as a whole, a declining old-age support ratio would mean rising taxes and a heavier economic load on a smaller base of working-age Singaporeans. A shrinking and ageing population would also mean a smaller, less energetic workforce, and a less vibrant and innovative economy. Companies may not find enough workers. Business activity would slow, and job and employment opportunities would shrink. It would become more difficult to match the higher aspirations of a better educated and mobile population. Young people would leave for more exciting and growing global cities. This would hollow out our population and workforce, and worsen our ratio of younger to older Singaporeans." (The Population White Paper, 2013)

Had it prioritized Singaporeans’ welfare over economic growth as the end, that same paragraph might have looked like this:

For society as a whole, a declining old-age support ratio would mean an increase in generational burden and greater strains to the existing family structure. There will be greater demand for elderly social services such as nursing homes, and health service costs will increase.  These create strains within families that could exacerbate intergenerational tension, bringing about social isolation of elderly people from the community. All these threaten family ties, harmony and the general wellbeing of society.

The policy measures following from this would have been very different: it would have been about creating stronger social safety nets for the elderly, reducing childrearing burdens, providing better support for single-parent families, increasing inter-generational dialogues, encouraging innovations in elder support infrastructure, investments in the silver industry. Greater emphases on these priorities might go a longer way to managing Singapore’s population problems than the current plan, which might paradoxically be feeding into the problem of dipping fertility rate.

The government has always prided itself on its ability to think long-term and plan well ahead. In its zeal to confront future problems and meet economic targets, it seems to have overlooked the most important priorities of the present: wellbeing, sustainability, values. The result is a great deal of construction noise for the next couple of years, but to what end? As the debate continues in Parliament over the population plan and alternatives are presented, let’s hope that the right questions will be asked and priorities re-examined so Singapore can be a nation - and not an –alien-nation – in the making.

----------------

Chan Chi Ling is a Political Science (Honors) candidate at Stanford University.

However, such resolve seems misplaced, because the White Paper’s analysis and reasoning comes across as being questionable on many counts. First, it mostly treats growth as a panacea, even though there is the sense that the underlying issues behind the problems attributed to the demographic decline will go unresolved.

For example, it argues that the population needs to grow at a fast clip in order to generate enough revenue to care for our aging population, but neglects to mention how the government will actually do more to help beyond building a few more hospitals.  There was no hint that the government would spend more on social insurance to boost the income of the elderly and provide them with comprehensive medical coverage.

Second, the paper gives the impression that the problems that continued rapid population growth entails are being papered over, rather than properly addressed.  That has done little to assuage worries that the problems that the voters now associate with rapid population growth will be exacerbated by the plans outlined by the paper.

Third, intangible matters of national identity and social cohesion were treated as if there was some set formula for integrating a rapid influx of new residents, despite indications to the contrary.  Moreover, for a government that has made so much of the issue of ethnic balance as a pillar of the Singapore formula, the question of how the balance will change was delicately neglected.  Will having a population close to 7 million actually dissuade Singaporeans from having more children, given their expectations that the costs and competition for their children will only worsen?

The government needs to remedy this by focusing on the critical issue: that of Singapore’s unsustainably low total fertility rate (TFR). Instead of dishing out short-term incentives for Singaporeans to have children, it should be looking to create an environment conducive for families. The Nordic countries, which have rather successfully restored sustainable TFRs over the last couple of decades, provide an example worthy of study. They have accomplished this through generous subsidies for childcare, equalising the roles of men and women in childcare, as well as building a comprehensive social safety net.  At the same time, the Nordic nations remain the most competitive in the world, with their famously large public sectors gradually getting smaller while still being highly efficient.

Moreover, the government also needs to produce a more convincing blueprint for tackling existing problems, particularly those in housing and transport. The current plans outlined by the paper to expand public housing and the public transport network have drawn grumbles that they might not even alleviate the stress due to the current population.  Otherwise, Singaporeans are being unfairly asked to put their faith in a plan that has almost irreversible consequences if the government gets it wrong.  This is a pertinent question since the government, despite its frequent boast about its ability to plan for the long-term, quite clearly failed to foresee and plan for the rapid population growth of the last decade.

That being said, the paper ultimately fails to persuade because it treats people as digits and numbers, to be added and aggregated like any other input in the economic process.  That reflects the government’s mindset, which is to look at the cold hard numbers while often neglecting the wider social and cultural context that should be embedded in any political decision-making.

If anything, the paper is a sign of how the ruling party lacks vision.  The White Paper might have been an opportunity for it to lay out a truly bold vision for the country’s future, one that breaks free of the one-dimensional approach that has (arguably) served it well for the past five decades but is coming up against its limits.  It was a chance for the ruling party to rethink its approach to governance and about how to consolidate a still fledging national identity – instead, the paper felt like a rush job conveniently timed for the lull between the by-election and the upcoming budget.

Disappointingly, the opposition parties are just as guilty of a lack of ideas – the main Opposition Worker Party’s counter-proposal was essentially a diluted version of the White Paper with somewhat lower numerical targets.  Such are the monuments of unageing intellect, indeed.

Make no mistake, the WP deserves a great deal of the credit for a convincing win in what had been deemed to be a safe seat for the PAP.  Since it won Aljunied in a famous upset in 2011, it has built on its image as a fairly safe pair of hands for managing the town councils under its charge. Having more MPs in Parliament has also helped to increase the party’s visibility.  A MP caught in a sex scandal last year was ruthlessly handled, with the fallout scarcely affecting the party in the ensuing by-election. Behind the scenes, the party has developed a considerable grassroots and volunteer following, which it impressively mobilised for the last two by-elections.

But the party’s growth has been aided in good measure by the ruling PAP’s stumbles, which are beginning to appear with worrying frequency. The key one is that the party’s feel for the ground seems to have slipped markedly since the third generation of leaders took over in the early 2000s. Unhappiness over immigration and housing prices has festered because the PAP appears to presume a consensus over its economic agenda that may no longer hold. The government has not been able to come up with policy solutions to these vexing issues convincing enough for the electorate because fewer and fewer Singaporeans are wedded to the party’s growth-first approach.

The problem here is that the PAP’s organisation is essentially a fossilised relic of the 1960s. Power is concentrated exclusively in the hands of the central committee, with the rest of the party essentially hollowed out.  That is the very thing that prevents the party from renewing itself properly. Talent does not rise through the ranks – instead, the party is dependent on “parachute” candidates identified by the leadership. It does not help that the party’s grassroots organisation is nominally detached from the party – it is in reality a statutory board under the government – and the enthusiasm gap between it and the WP’s growing following only seems to be widening.

Furthermore, the overly centralised party structure compromises diversity. Voters have difficulty differentiating between the various PAP candidates, most of whom seem interchangeable with one another. That also makes it difficult for the party to reform itself: all the so-called next generation leaders brought in in 2011 are impeccable members of the establishment that have shown little inclination to question party doctrine.

The PAP’s woes reflect those faced at the national level.  The idea that Singapore needs an overwhelmingly dominant party in order to be governed effectively has been undermined over the past few years not only by growing discontent over government policies but by various scandals involving establishment figures. Sex scandals are likely to be interpreted as a sign of moral decadence, but the ruckus over the AIM affair (regarding possible irregularities in the sale of town council software developed with public funds to a PAP-related company) is something more worrying. For a party long thought to be above the taint of being self-serving, it could confirm the resentment of some that the establishment is taking advantage of its privileged position for its own ends.

It is not too late for the party to change. The PAP may never be as dominant as it was a decade ago, but it can stabilise its standing among the electorate by renewing itself in the spirit that first captured national prominence in the 1950s. Opening up the party to more diverse candidates, encouraging internal party democracy and nurturing a neglected grassroots organisation would go a long way towards restoring some of the party’s appeal. Things have to change in order to stay the same. But by doing so, it would also bring Singapore closer to a freer and more open system that is the norm in other democracies worthy of the name.

The second instance came today – 10 February – when he again apologized for a mistake his government has made. This time, for describing nursing as a “low skilled” occupation in the White Paper. He also promised the government will assess how it can do better to communicate future policy proposals.

If you read between the lines, you see a prime minister under siege, really.

And it is not just from the public backlash following the release of this White Paper. Since PM Lee took over the prime ministership from Goh Chok Tong, the two general elections under his watch have seen the share of PAP votes declined – from a high of 75 per cent in 2001 (under Goh) to 60 per cent in 2011. A decline of 15 per cent which, in Singapore, is a significant drop. It has resulted in the loss of a GRC to the opposition, a failure to reclaim Hougang in 2 attempts within a year, and a further loss of a SMC which was only carved out in 2011 and which was deemed a safe seat for the PAP.

The only consolation PM Lee could look to is winning back the opposition ward of Potong Pasir – but many would put the victory down to Sitoh Yihpin’s doggedness than PM Lee’s leadership.

And away from electoral politics, there are the seemingly neverending troubles with public transport, public housing, depressed wages, job security, retirement needs, an ageing population, falling birth rates, sex scandals involving his officials, the incessant criticism and ridicule from the public, especially on social and online media.

PM Lee himself, in the past sheltered from the magnifying glass of public opinion, has now to contend with sharp retorts, instantaneous rebuttals to every word he says.

Not too long ago, his father, the former PM Lee Kuan Yew, said that if Singapore’s leaders were subjected to the same incessant criticism and ridicule faced by their American counterparts, our leaders would lose the respect of the people, and would find it hard to lead the country.

Are we far from what Lee senior said? And if we are, does it matter? Should not public figures be subject to scrutiny?

I feel that public officials should have a higher threshold for criticism. However, there should also be room for respect – after all, they are elected by the majority of people and we should respect the vote of the people by respecting those who hold the offices they have been elected to.

What could actually be more beneficial to the government, and to the prime minister, is to open itself more to debate and discussion. The government, because of its access to information and the civil service, has a huge advantage over anyone else when it comes to policy matters. So, it should not be afraid to engage the public on this.

It could in fact be educational or instructive for people to see how complex policy making is, or could be. It would be better than trying to shove things down people’s throats – as the White Paper experience is seen to have done.

But I would also say that the prime minister is not helped by the idiotic behavior of some of his MPs. These MPs need to learn to be calm, patient, mature and be reminded that they are not above the public which they are suppose to be serving. In a word, they need to show humility. Hubris is a disease which they should discard like the plague.

No one elected you to be emperor.

And they need – I mean, seriously – need to listen. Listen. Listen to know what people are saying before they open their mouths, or type on their keyboards and leave comments which will be captured for posterity.

Remarks such as this one by MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh, Zainudin Nordin:

Mr Nordin apparently is entirely out of touch with what the general public feels about the number of foreigners, and economic growth. [I’ll leave that to commenters to point out to him, if he is interested, and if it is not already clear enough to him.]

I wish PM Lee a happy 61st birthday.

He has not an easy society to lead, with all the very serious problems and issues we face. And it is precisely because of this that we need more heads in Parliament, different types of heads, of all shades. There is too much group think in the PAP, and therefore in Government (and Parliament) at the moment. And it is not helping anyone, least of all the Prime Minister.

Which is why the best thing PM Lee could do is to further open Singapore up, especially politically.

The shortcomings of the decades of one-party rule are  finally catching up with us – one of the most significant of which are MPs of the PAP whose abilities as politicians do not match up to the job requirement. And thus any PAP prime minister will always face the same problems, if the system is not reviewed and opened up.

---------------

Read this article on the White Paper and how the government needs to improve in how it presents its proposals: "There won't be overcrowding in 2030".

And: "PAP must get the small things right first".

Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we take the next step. I call on the government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home. So I call for a breather in this quest of growing the population and focus on improving the lives of Singaporeans and achieve that promised Swiss Standard of living for most Singaporeans first before we plan our next growth trajectory.

Taking Care of the Singaporean Core

I have a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens we are planning to add to our population. I don't see the necessity to be as aggressive when the key consideration of the population growth is the economy. We have already added too many new citizens and PRs and need time for integration and social cohesion to happen. Looking at history, our population grew from around 2.4m in 1980 to 3m in 1990 and then to 4m in 2000, reaching 5.3m last year. Just looking at the resident population alone, we grew the numbers from 2.3m in 1980 to 2.7m in 1990, 3.3m in the year 2000 and then to 3.8m last year. So in the last decade we added more than 1m to the resident population, and the in last 25 years, which is close to 1 generation of Singaporeans, we have added another close to 50% more to our resident population. I believe this must be the fastest rate of population growth in the world and I feel this is just too much for us to comfortably go back and build a national identity and social cohesion which was progressing very well till the 1990s. Adding another 500,000 to 800,000 more PRs and citizens as proposed by the white paper will be disastrous and add to our already difficult infrastructure and social problems.

If it is economic growth we want then let's just adopt the Dubai model of a transient workforce which will give us a lot more flexibility to manage numbers in the longer term. On PRs, today we already have too many of them and they are enjoying full citizen privileges without the citizens' responsibilities. For example;

- Far too many PR boys who skip NS when they turn 18. After enjoying the privileges they have a choice of not doing NS and then leave the country. I believe only around 30% of all PR boys do NS today. Well, our Singapore sons don't have a choice but to do NS, it is an office not to do it.

- PR children study at their International system schools sticking to their home cultures.

- PRs can buy HDB flats from the open market driving prices of HDB flats too high.

So I urge the government to reduce the number of projected new PRs and citizens just to the population replacement levels and be more selective and differentiate their privileges from citizens. I have a few suggestions for the government to consider;

• The government in the past couple of years has tried to draw the distinction between PRs and citizens by increasing school fees and healthcare fees for them. But I wonder would it not have been better to instead partially subsidize these same fees for Singapore citizens? So do it the other way round, reduce fees for Singaporeans not just increase for PRs.

• PR children must be made do national service - it should no longer be a choice and we should make it an offence if they don’t do it. We should not grant PRs to families who don’t commit their sons to National Service.

• HDB - if a PR buys a HDB flat from the open market, charge a levy of say $50k and allow them to sell only to Singaporeans. If the PR takes up citizenship within 5 years, we can refund the levy.

• Children of PRs should be made to study in our national schools so that we increase the chance of integrating them at the next generation.

• On the employment front, it is time we implement a Singaporean first hiring policy like what is done in some developed countries like Canada. Companies should show proof first that they were not able to fill a position with a Singaporean before they are allowed to hire a foreigner.

• Reconsider the dependents policy - I have come across a number of cases where our targeted one child from China brings in 2 parents who then bring 2 parents each as their dependents - Net is that we gain one young one child who we brought in for our future but also inherited 6 older people - making our ageing population issue worse not better.

I feel the differentiated privileges will separate the genuine ones from those who are here for a ride. We should grant PRs to those who are most likely going to take up citizenships so these differentiated privileges should not stifle our plans to attract quality PRs and new citizens.

This brings me to the point of how many Singaporeans are feeling about the presence of such huge numbers of new citizens, PRs and foreigners amongst our midst. First for housing - there is no doubt that the influx of foreigners in Singapore has driven up our property prices. PRs are buying HDB flats from the open market which drives up prices.

Just last week I had a dialogue session with my private estates residents and one of my residents complained that a new citizens recently bought a landed property in this old estate and was building a 3 and a half storey towering house. Well the, new citizen, the owner of the house was also present and when, I spoke with him during the tea session I found out that he was a new citizen formerly from China, just gained his citizenship and bought not 1 but 3 landed properties in Kebun Baru alone. I was surprised and saddened because many Singaporeans cannot afford to do the same, and this new citizen, no matter how he may have made his wealth is able to do so.

Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce feel demoralized because many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans. I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years I could afford a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns $2600, just $700 more than what I earned when I started. The mathematics is very simple, the cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum the last 27 years and even more, the cost of owning a HDB flat is did not just go up by 37% since 1985.

Finally, I am perturbed by the banquet analogy used by Minister Khaw. We are talking about lives of Singaporeans. Our banquet guests come for one night and leave when the function is over. There is no turning back when we grant PR and citizenships. We must be more exact about the numbers we want to add to the Singapore population and not plan on a basis of 'hoping we hit some number". Because if overdo things and end up with a population of more than 7m, it may be too late to stop the fast moving train of population growth when we fire up all the engines of growing the population. We missed the mark the last 10 years, and are already paying a high price for that mistake.

In my speech in this house in 2008 during the committee of supply debate on the population I urged the government to abandon the "the instant tree mentality" in trying to grow the population in response to the declining birth rates. At that time, I did not agree with the rate of growth pursued and we know the consequences and the hardship Singaporeans faced as a result of the rapid growth, Instant trees cannot grow strong roots and can be uprooted in difficult times. I once again urge the government to slow down and plan on reaching their population target over a longer time horizon. I don't think we can live with a 6.9m population in 2030. We may be able to handle it in 2050, no one really knows. Please abandon this 'instant tree" mentality as we cannot afford to make Singaporeans lives more difficult as a result. I rather we err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for planning misjudgements.

In conclusion, I would like to see us take a breather from re-growing our population again. We have too many problems as a result of the last breathtaking population growth rate. As a government we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us and that we are willing take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems, make their lives more comfortable, give them a better quality of life and show them that any future growth of population will not create similar social and cost of living problems. At this stage many Singaporeans from all walks of life don't have the confidence that we can handle another steep growth of the population, so let's not push it. I would like all of us, including the government to spend the time creating and environment that gives us confidence in our future and one where our young can see a sense of hope of opportunity and if we fail to instil a sense of hope and opportunity for our future generations, we will not be able to root them here and build a strong national identity and a strong nation. This is what building a strong Singapore core should entail. So let's delay all plans for further population growth for now.

This fundamental error to assume that the outrage over the White Paper is in communication and not in policy is the frame that the media have used to evaluate the White Paper debate. This obscures the genuine concerns of many in Singapore and instead paints them as uninformed, emotive and a people having “very strong” views. Moreover, these statements betray also the paternal and elitist tone that continues to pervade national politics and discussions. As Han Fook Kwang, a former Straits Times editor, writes:

"And because it is a complex problem with many issues in the mix -demographics, the structure of the economy, immigration policy, even questions regarding what it means to be Singaporean- it isn't possible for ordinary Singaporeans to absorb and fully understand all the arguments and implications."

– “Government needs to regain people’s trust” (Straits Times, 10 Feb 2013)

Informed commentators (who are thus not “ordinary”) have ripped apart the paper and called it out for being driven on assumptions, riddled with ideological blinkers and have no references besides casual allusions to some in-house statistics and studies. When many were sceptical about the veracity and due diligence in the conclusions that were made, apologists clamour that the White Paper has to be ‘simple so people can understand it.’ It appears to me that the White Paper exists in a quantum state of “complex” and “simple”, depending on which argument it needs to rebut at the moment.

Worse still is the condescending and elitist remark that Han makes, that it's "not possible" for "ordinary Singaporeans to absorb and fully understand." Han must be truly un-ordinary because he understands all the issues! The hubris is truly astounding. Who is this mythical "ordinary Singaporean" he speaks of?

Assuming that this "ordinary Singaporean" even exists (perhaps alongside with the lepak Malay, the drunk Indian and the mercenary Chinese), maybe the reason why we don’t “fully understand” is because the debate for a policy that would have charted our path for the next 2 decades was discussed and stamped and approved within five days.

Han’s argument is fundamentally a logical fallacy in the form of a red herring, also specifically known as “The Courtier’s Reply.” Whenever the opponent raises a point, rather than addressing that point, you claim instead that they do not have “complete knowledge,” which therefore invalidates their point. However, what Han is indirectly saying is that you should be informed, but only about the “right things.” Naturally, all other arguments against the policy are invalid, are “emotive” rather than “rational.”

The emotive Singaporean

It is here that the next bogeyman against any government policy appears: The Emotive Singaporean. That Singaporeans are all hot and bothered (but not for babies) about the debate is disagreeable to Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor of the Straits Times. In her article, ‘Let’s get over that emotional hump’, she urged ‘right-minded Singaporeans’ to ‘get over that emotional hump and the 6.9 million figure and take the White Paper at face value for what it is trying to do.’ It is this simplification of opposition to the White Paper that belittles the intellectual capital that has been against the debate, and the frustrations of citizens who have voiced their anxieties, only to be painted as having an ‘emotional hump.’

She continues by saying that the White Paper is a ‘roadmap for planners to gear up for all the extra buses, trains, homes, parks, nursing homes, hospitals, childcare centres that are needed.’ In the span of two weeks, the White Paper has turned from one of population to one of infrastructure.

"I'm not an economist. But I am always mindful that a loss in income of 2 percentage points from slower growth when you earn $10,000 a month is a paltry $200 you will not notice.

"For a worker scraping by on $1,200, $24 less a month may mean his daughter can't go to a neighbourhood tuition centre to get help with her homework. Or no broadband subscription at home."

– “Population White Paper: Let's get over that emotional hump” (Straits Times,9 Feb 2013)

In fact, even Chua Mui Hoong is an “ordinary Singaporean,” for she is uninformed to the fact that GDP and wages are not directly correlated, and makes the fallacious example above. Despite a decade of strong growth, maybe she has her own emotional hump to get over.

The pliant media

These commentaries by Chua and Han are part of the greater swing that we see The Straits Times embracing over the last year; that they are no longer interested in objective reportage. I would argue that the media should be objective in their discussion of something so monumental, rather than parroting and selling the sound bites that the PAP wants people to hear, something which The Straits Times is complicit in doing.

PM Lee said:

"It will take some time. It's a very emotional issue. Understandably, it's an issue which the views are very strong. It's also a very complicated issue.

"So I hope people will think about what has been spoken in Parliament, all the views which have been expressed and not only understand what this is about, and the intricacies, but also understand what we are trying to do is to try to help Singaporeans have a better life for the future in the best way possible.”

– ‘Govt to examine its experience in Population White Paper’ (Straits Times, 10 Feb 2013)

Reading the excerpt above, you can hardly see any difference between what the PM says and what these commentators have said. This is in contrast to Today, which has published one  hard-hitting  commentary  after  another. [See footnotes: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Perhaps their role as not number one, but number two, allows for their editorial board to take on a greater diversity of views. These arguments are hardly the efforts of uninformed, emotive Singaporeans who are whiny and immature.

So Mr Han, if you’re still confused at why the electorate seems to not be unable to “understand fully,” you just have to read the newspaper that your commentary appeared in and which you’re managing. The answer is in fact right in front of you.

---------------

Footnotes:

1. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1253382/1/.html

2. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/social-norms-must-drive-policymaking

3. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/imperfect-measure-progress-gdp

4. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/what-family-friendly-really-means

5. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/beware-unintended-consequences

6. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/its-vision-thing-spore-politics-come

Instead of aiming to take in 15,000 to 25,000 new citizens and 30,000 PRs each year to "ensure a pool of suitable potential citizens" and thinking of people in terms of labor inputs producing corresponding labor outputs, it would have focused a lot more on who we are bringing in. It would have been more sensitive to the fact that population growth per-se does not necessarily lead to economic growth, and that the nature and composition of population growth is as critical as its rate.

This is what decides whether Singapore will become a new nation of immigrants (as we have been), or an alien-nation; a hub, or a home.

This is also why immigration debates in many countries are centered on entry criteria more than quotas: should there be a more discriminate and selective admission system? What criteria should be emphasized? Should we consider using a points system, as countries like Australia and Canada have? How can an immigration system best maximize gains from population diversity and minimize cultural friction? Alas, nothing is mentioned in the plan beyond a "citizenship journey" and English courses run by the People’s Association and NTUC, as if putting people through one-off state-funded classes are going to solve complex problems of integration. Contrast that with more serious approaches taken towards integration of immigrants in Canada's white paper, and one realizes there is more than meets the eye to assimilation.

Misplaced priorities?

The irony that comes with a population policy driven by GDP growth is that it tries to serve ‘Singaporeans’ who don't even exist. The white paper is a long litany of construction plans to keep up with future increases in population, which is completely within policy control. In a somewhat perverse way, the plan is creating the very problem it is also trying to solve. As long as GDP growth is the key determinant of population policy (and it doesn't look like this mindset is going to change), then there will always be a need for population growth, and always a need for more houses, buses, trains, schools and hospitals to meet these demands.

The pursuit for growth, as long as we are on a hedonic treadmill, is endless. But there are real physical limits to how much a small island like ours can hold before sustainability becomes a problem, and real psychological limits to how much change a generation of people can take.  Especially for a small island state like Singapore, achieving economic growth through population growth means kicking the can further down the road: what happens in 2050 when the new Singaporeans and PRs we bring in also age? Furthermore, why use current tax dollars to finance the wellbeing and lifestyles of a massive influx of future immigrants, when there are so many pressing social spending, healthcare and cost of living concerns now? Who pays and who benefits?

A declining birth rate and greying population is not an easy demographic challenge to tackle, nor is it a problem unique to Singapore. But the approach that a government takes tells one a lot about its priorities. A population policy that places Singaporeans' welfare - as opposed to economic growth targets - at its heart would have been about children and the elderly. Japan, which confronts the same problem, except worse, has its population white paper centered almost exclusively on children and childcare support.

It is also striking how policy on coping with an aging population is completely absent in the paper despite the fact that it is the most important demographic problem a sound population policy should be addressing. By 2030, the number of citizens aged 65 years and above will triple to 900,000 by 2030; 1 in 5 of the population will be an elderly. How does the government see the old-age problem? The white paper implies that the old-age problem is not about the aged amongst us, but about the economy:

"For society as a whole, a declining old-age support ratio would mean rising taxes and a heavier economic load on a smaller base of working-age Singaporeans. A shrinking and ageing population would also mean a smaller, less energetic workforce, and a less vibrant and innovative economy. Companies may not find enough workers. Business activity would slow, and job and employment opportunities would shrink. It would become more difficult to match the higher aspirations of a better educated and mobile population. Young people would leave for more exciting and growing global cities. This would hollow out our population and workforce, and worsen our ratio of younger to older Singaporeans." (The Population White Paper, 2013)

Had it prioritized Singaporeans’ welfare over economic growth as the end, that same paragraph might have looked like this:

For society as a whole, a declining old-age support ratio would mean an increase in generational burden and greater strains to the existing family structure. There will be greater demand for elderly social services such as nursing homes, and health service costs will increase.  These create strains within families that could exacerbate intergenerational tension, bringing about social isolation of elderly people from the community. All these threaten family ties, harmony and the general wellbeing of society.

The policy measures following from this would have been very different: it would have been about creating stronger social safety nets for the elderly, reducing childrearing burdens, providing better support for single-parent families, increasing inter-generational dialogues, encouraging innovations in elder support infrastructure, investments in the silver industry. Greater emphases on these priorities might go a longer way to managing Singapore’s population problems than the current plan, which might paradoxically be feeding into the problem of dipping fertility rate.

The government has always prided itself on its ability to think long-term and plan well ahead. In its zeal to confront future problems and meet economic targets, it seems to have overlooked the most important priorities of the present: wellbeing, sustainability, values. The result is a great deal of construction noise for the next couple of years, but to what end? As the debate continues in Parliament over the population plan and alternatives are presented, let’s hope that the right questions will be asked and priorities re-examined so Singapore can be a nation - and not an –alien-nation – in the making.

----------------

Chan Chi Ling is a Political Science (Honors) candidate at Stanford University.

Mr Singh’s speech resonated with many Singaporeans who felt that he had echoed what they felt in their hearts. However, what has transpired since his speech has led to criticisms of Mr Singh instead, that he didn’t put his money where his mouth was in failing to vote against the White Paper in Parliament.

Mr Singh was absent from the House when the vote was called. He was one of eight MPs who did not cast their votes on the White Paper. When asked by the media if he had absented himself from the vote on purpose, Mr Singh declined to elaborate or explain if he indeed did.

The Straits Times reported that “he was in Parliament earlier on the day the vote was taken, but did not want to say if he had intentionally left the chamber before the vote.”

3 days after his speech on 9 February, Mr Singh posted a note on his Facebook page in what some saw as an about-turn from the fiery criticisms he made in Parliament. Now, his online post lauded the “many excellent plans” contained in the White Paper, and Mr Singh urged Singaporeans to “give the government that time” to carry out these plans.

“I felt that many of the things I asked for in my speech did get through to the government and let's hope the actions which will follow will also reflect this openness the government has demonstrated during the debate,” he wrote. “I am confident this will happen.”

However, on 3 March, Mr Singh was again in the news, this time apparently calling on his party to lift its party whip when Parliament votes on “major policies”. [See here.]

“More MPs from the ruling party might have joined in last month's debate on the Population White Paper if this had happened,” the Straits Times reported him as having said. However, Mr Singh said that “[even] if the whip was lifted, he felt the amended motion… would still have been passed.”

Referring to earlier criticisms of his being absent from the vote and not registering his dissent through it, he said, "I feel that this is an unreasonable criticism. Just because I didn't do so, they say I say one thing but do another. Moreover, the party whip wasn't removed, so everyone should know the outcome of the vote."

In other words, Mr Singh seems to say that as long as the party whip is not lifted, what the party leadership decides will hold, especially in a Parliament where the ruling party has such an overwhelming majority of the seats.

Mr Singh is right, of course.

But is having a Whip in place necessarily a bad thing?

When asked (before the debate on the White Paper) if the whip would be lifted for the debate, PAP Whip Gan Kim Yong said, “We would only do so if the subject of debate is a matter of conscience.”

The last 2 times the Whip was lifted was in 2007 (when Parliament voted on the so-called “gay law”, S377A) and in 2010 (on the Maintenance of Parents Bill amendments).

There are several reasons why the practice of the Whip is in place. For example, it is to instil party discipline – that party members toe the party line. It is also to prevent MPs from crossing party lines and voting with other parties with impunity, holding their party leadership ransom, so to speak. The Whip ensures that the message the party (and the government) sends out to the public (and its own party, in fact) on any particular matter or policy is a clear one, and that when all is said and done, everyone (public, party, government) knows the direction in which we will be moving, or in the case of the opposition parties, what the parties’ position is on any particular issue. The PAP has also spoken of its belief in “collective responsibility” when it comes to policy decisions. An example is how it goes about implementing the (mandatory) death penalty where it is not one person who holds the onerous responsibility but the entire Cabinet.

It is for these same reasons that the opposition Workers’ Party decided to appoint its own party Whip – Mr Low Thia Khiang – in 2011, after the WP won 6 seats and had another 2 Non-constituency MPs in Parliament.

Mr Singh’s call for the party Whip to be lifted for voting on “major policies” is a curious one. Contrary to what he suggests, one would think that it is precisely because of “major policies” that the government would want an unequivocal or unambiguous message to be sent out. The party Whip serves this important purpose. Imagine a public confused by what the government’s (or ruling party’s) position on a particular issue is because there is no clarity in the votes cast by its own members.

This is not to say that MPs like Mr Singh, who incidentally was a fomer party deputy Whip himself, are helpless. There are certain things he can do (privately or publicly) to effect changes he wishes to see, or to voice his unhappiness or disapproval over certain things.

Internally, within his party, he could lobby his colleagues in voting out party leaders whom he feels are not adequate, or to seek private dialogues with party leaders (which I am sure Mr Singh does, given that the leader of his GRC team in Ang Mo Kio is also the prime minister). He may also initiate debate within his party on how or when the party Whip should be imposed.

Ultimately, however, if MPs like Mr Singh truly feel that they cannot live with a policy or a decision made by their party or government, then there is always the option of stepping down or stepping out of the party and resign.

While one can appreciate that with the Whip in place, Mr Singh had really no choice – as far as casting his parliamentary vote was concerned, and that absenting himself was the “best option” for him – one would however also question if he should not have the gumption to resign his position if he felt so strongly (as indeed he did, from the strong words he used in his speech) about the White paper. Resignation would be a last resort, one would imagine. But it is nonetheless an option open to Mr Singh.

Since Mr Singh has now lauded the White Paper’s “many excellent plans”, has called on Singaporeans to give the government time, and seems happy about how his views were heard and even accepted by the government, one wonders why he is calling for the Whip to be lifted on occasions.

In short, Mr Singh’s seemingly shifting position on the matter does not reflect well on his conviction, in fact.

“The government listened and decided to amend the 6.9m number,” he said on his Facebook note. “The government agreed to take the views of many MPs and Singaporeans who contributed to the debate. I am glad the government showed flexibility this time round. I know the prime minister will deliver and I am fully behind him on this. I want to thank the Prime Minister for showing this flexibility and we should all give him the full support so that he can work on the plans with his team.”

Why then the need to lift the Whip?

What would it have achieved in this case, given that Mr Singh also said, “People must accept there's party discipline and rules on such matters”?

Perhaps what Mr Singh is saying is that the PAP’s internal communication and feedback process needs improving. Or perhaps Mr Singh is saying that PAP MPs are not consulted enough before policy decisions are made, and they have to express their disagreements or disapproval in Parliament.

Or perhaps what Mr Singh wants is reassurance that voting what he feels is right will not attract reprisals for him and MPs like him from his party. One of the consequences of not toeing the party line is, of course, dismissal from the party – and along with it one’s parliamentary seat and all the benefits of it, including a not ungenerous salary. But such reassurances, if indeed these are what Mr Singh seeks, is a different matter for him and his party to discuss.

What Singaporeans want to see are MPs who can speak their minds, and who have the courage to put their money where their mouths are. At the same time, however, Singaporeans also understand that a government – as a collective - must send a clear signal on where it stands on any matters.

MPs who disagree with their party positions have options, one of which is to resign. It may seem a drastic thing to do but if a policy decision inspires such strong words and sentiments (as Mr Singh expressed in Parliament), then such an action is reasonable.

Would Mr Singh be asking for the Whip to be lifted if Parliament was not also so overwhelmingly filled with PAP MPs?

More importantly, instead of asking for his party Whip to be lifted when voting for “major policies”, Mr Singh should instead ask if he is convicted enough to stand his ground when it comes to the crunch, instead of pointing fingers after the fact.

Some say Mr Singh should have stayed and cast his vote against the White Paper – and accept the consequences from his party – if he truly felt so strongly against the Paper.

I am not inclined to disagree with such a view.

Mr Singh might disagree and say, as he now has, that his views were taken into consideration by the government and PM Lee Hsien Loong and he is satisfied with this, and thus there is no need to resign from the party in protest. But PM Lee made his speech after Mr Singh had spoken, both in Parliament - before the vote.

Referring to the parliamentary debate, Mr Singh wrote online that “it ended quite surprisingly by the prime minister agreeing to change course on the 6.9m population by reducing the government expectation of a future population to something significantly lower than the 6.9m.”

“I am glad the government showed flexibility this time round. I know the prime minister will deliver and I am fully behind him on this. I want to thank the Prime Minister for showing this flexibility and we should all give him the full support so that he can work on the plans with his team.”

So, why didn’t Mr Singh stay in the House and vote in favour of the White Paper, instead of absenting himself, especially after the PM’s explanation which seemed to have assuaged Mr Singh’s concerns and gained Mr Singh’s emphatic approval?

It is rather curious, these twists and turns. Their ends don't meet.

This fundamental error to assume that the outrage over the White Paper is in communication and not in policy is the frame that the media have used to evaluate the White Paper debate. This obscures the genuine concerns of many in Singapore and instead paints them as uninformed, emotive and a people having “very strong” views. Moreover, these statements betray also the paternal and elitist tone that continues to pervade national politics and discussions. As Han Fook Kwang, a former Straits Times editor, writes:

"And because it is a complex problem with many issues in the mix -demographics, the structure of the economy, immigration policy, even questions regarding what it means to be Singaporean- it isn't possible for ordinary Singaporeans to absorb and fully understand all the arguments and implications."

– “Government needs to regain people’s trust” (Straits Times, 10 Feb 2013)

Informed commentators (who are thus not “ordinary”) have ripped apart the paper and called it out for being driven on assumptions, riddled with ideological blinkers and have no references besides casual allusions to some in-house statistics and studies. When many were sceptical about the veracity and due diligence in the conclusions that were made, apologists clamour that the White Paper has to be ‘simple so people can understand it.’ It appears to me that the White Paper exists in a quantum state of “complex” and “simple”, depending on which argument it needs to rebut at the moment.

Worse still is the condescending and elitist remark that Han makes, that it's "not possible" for "ordinary Singaporeans to absorb and fully understand." Han must be truly un-ordinary because he understands all the issues! The hubris is truly astounding. Who is this mythical "ordinary Singaporean" he speaks of?

Assuming that this "ordinary Singaporean" even exists (perhaps alongside with the lepak Malay, the drunk Indian and the mercenary Chinese), maybe the reason why we don’t “fully understand” is because the debate for a policy that would have charted our path for the next 2 decades was discussed and stamped and approved within five days.

Han’s argument is fundamentally a logical fallacy in the form of a red herring, also specifically known as “The Courtier’s Reply.” Whenever the opponent raises a point, rather than addressing that point, you claim instead that they do not have “complete knowledge,” which therefore invalidates their point. However, what Han is indirectly saying is that you should be informed, but only about the “right things.” Naturally, all other arguments against the policy are invalid, are “emotive” rather than “rational.”

The emotive Singaporean

It is here that the next bogeyman against any government policy appears: The Emotive Singaporean. That Singaporeans are all hot and bothered (but not for babies) about the debate is disagreeable to Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor of the Straits Times. In her article, ‘Let’s get over that emotional hump’, she urged ‘right-minded Singaporeans’ to ‘get over that emotional hump and the 6.9 million figure and take the White Paper at face value for what it is trying to do.’ It is this simplification of opposition to the White Paper that belittles the intellectual capital that has been against the debate, and the frustrations of citizens who have voiced their anxieties, only to be painted as having an ‘emotional hump.’

She continues by saying that the White Paper is a ‘roadmap for planners to gear up for all the extra buses, trains, homes, parks, nursing homes, hospitals, childcare centres that are needed.’ In the span of two weeks, the White Paper has turned from one of population to one of infrastructure.

"I'm not an economist. But I am always mindful that a loss in income of 2 percentage points from slower growth when you earn $10,000 a month is a paltry $200 you will not notice.

"For a worker scraping by on $1,200, $24 less a month may mean his daughter can't go to a neighbourhood tuition centre to get help with her homework. Or no broadband subscription at home."

– “Population White Paper: Let's get over that emotional hump” (Straits Times,9 Feb 2013)

In fact, even Chua Mui Hoong is an “ordinary Singaporean,” for she is uninformed to the fact that GDP and wages are not directly correlated, and makes the fallacious example above. Despite a decade of strong growth, maybe she has her own emotional hump to get over.

The pliant media

These commentaries by Chua and Han are part of the greater swing that we see The Straits Times embracing over the last year; that they are no longer interested in objective reportage. I would argue that the media should be objective in their discussion of something so monumental, rather than parroting and selling the sound bites that the PAP wants people to hear, something which The Straits Times is complicit in doing.

PM Lee said:

"It will take some time. It's a very emotional issue. Understandably, it's an issue which the views are very strong. It's also a very complicated issue.

"So I hope people will think about what has been spoken in Parliament, all the views which have been expressed and not only understand what this is about, and the intricacies, but also understand what we are trying to do is to try to help Singaporeans have a better life for the future in the best way possible.”

– ‘Govt to examine its experience in Population White Paper’ (Straits Times, 10 Feb 2013)

Reading the excerpt above, you can hardly see any difference between what the PM says and what these commentators have said. This is in contrast to Today, which has published one  hard-hitting  commentary  after  another. [See footnotes: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Perhaps their role as not number one, but number two, allows for their editorial board to take on a greater diversity of views. These arguments are hardly the efforts of uninformed, emotive Singaporeans who are whiny and immature.

So Mr Han, if you’re still confused at why the electorate seems to not be unable to “understand fully,” you just have to read the newspaper that your commentary appeared in and which you’re managing. The answer is in fact right in front of you.

---------------

Footnotes:

1. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1253382/1/.html

2. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/social-norms-must-drive-policymaking

3. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/imperfect-measure-progress-gdp

4. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/what-family-friendly-really-means

5. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/beware-unintended-consequences

6. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/its-vision-thing-spore-politics-come

There are other such examples when something becomes a problem when it is Malay and not when it is of another culture. Weddings are another example: Malay weddings are fattening, yet eight course Chinese weddings do not enter the picture. These inconsistencies in understanding should jar our thinking that the problem might not be straightforwardly ‘objective’ in nature. Why is it that fatty foods only become a problem when it is Malay foods? Why are Malay festivals or Malays eating out a problem? This seems to be a reflection of an old prejudice: that Malays are lazy and (by extension) fat.

This prejudice is justified ‘objectively’ as statistically speaking Malays are obese in greater numbers. Statistics however are like a bikini- what they reveal is interesting, but what they hide is fascinating. It is precisely through the use of these statistics that the whole discourse becomes racialized. The National Health Survey 2010 is one major example. If we refer to the executive summary of the survey, we find all manner of problems highlighted by racial categories: Hypertension, high blood pressure, obesity save one: binge drinking. This seems yet another demonstration of cognitive bias; what kind of health problems are highlighted and what are not. However, one may argue against the previous point that binge drinking is much less of a growing problem than obesity. The numbers testify to the problems of an increasingly unhealthy lifestyle: between 2004-2010 alone, the percentage of obesity among men nearly doubled from 6.4% to 12.1%.

Towards the end of the section on obesity, a small blurb suggests that this could be the cause of economic inequality. This is not hard to imagine: people in low paying jobs work longer hours; some like security guards do shift work, which is hardly conducive to exercise. Epidemiologists also suggests other ways economic disparity leads to ill health: for example, being in the lower rungs causes greater stress-inducing cortisol, which causes greater fat storage around the abdominal area. Another side effect of this increased stress could be increased smoking to cope with such stress. Furthermore foods which are ‘high energy density’ are often lower priced and are more affordable and accessible to the poor, in contrast to various health foods and supplements which are more available to the rich. This would mean that the fact we see more Malays as unhealthy could be because of economic situation rather than racial identity.

The absence of the data on class is the fascinating aspect of reality which is obscured. Such a problem is not a technical one, as there are plenty of studies globally which present data based on class. Rather it is ideological as it impacts how the problem of health in Singapore is discussed. With the present racialized framing of data, the discourse becomes about ‘educating’ people on the  consequences or exhortations to change an unhealthy lifestyle/diet/mindset. If a survey based on class divisions revealed great health discrepancies between rich and poor the way which we present and discuss the issues will greatly differ. Issues (mentioned above) of long working hours, high stress and access to quality food will arise. More importantly it would provide an urgent case for a more comprehensive healthcare system, in the light that the poor would be the least insured yet facing more chronic health problems. The way the issue is currently framed severely curtails the discourse on social justice and welfare but merely becomes a tool to confirm deeply held cognitive biases. The problem is without access to data, we cannot compare other possible correlations.

There is a more serious implication to this racialized framing of problems, in that such an approach merely ignores looming problems. The pattern should be self evident now. When there was a housing crisis, many Malays were initially badly affected, becoming homeless and living on beaches. However, we know now the weaknesses of the housing policies and difficulties in providing decent living spaces amidst rising prices and an uncertain economy.  Malays and other minorities were most affected by the influx of migrants many years before a white paper appeared, as the landscape became increasingly unfamiliar and alien. Long before xenophobia became such a compelling cause to rail against, Malays and other minorities have had to struggle with problems of discrimination, stereotyping and prejudice.

We should look at this instance no differently. Over the last few years, there has been an influx of all manner of processed food ranging from desserts to boutique coffee to all kinds of deep fried foods as a result of our open and globalized economy. Partly to accommodate the increase in population, localized town centers have mushroomed to ensure that traffic towards the main city area is reduced. This has inadvertently encouraged consumption and access to the aforementioned processed foods in heartland areas. Encouraged by long working hours and stressful competitive environments, these places constitute a ‘quick fix’, ‘comfort food' or sugar rush which only adds to the problem. With the lack of a comprehensive healthcare system, and rising healthcare costs, this increasingly obesogenic environment is recipe for a catastrophe.

As the problem is defined more broadly, older strategies of facing the problem of health based on race seem archaic and inadequate. Newer, more fundamental solutions need to be explored holistically with reference to real changes on patterns of everyday life, rather than abstract notions and assumptions of culture. The question is whether we let prejudices determine how problems are seen or look beyond these biases for more effective solutions.

----------------------------

Fadli Fawzi is a blogger who reads, writes and discusses on a wide range of social issues. His writings can be found at daunkesom.wordpress.com.

In almost every notable case where online posters have displayed distasteful or uncalled for behaviour, members of the online community have stepped up to condemn or speak out against such behaviour. And this applies even when it involves attacks on MPs of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) such as Tin Pei Ling. [See here.]

Even when xenophobic views were expressed, the online community called these out and condemned them and the originator of such postings.

In contrast, no MPs have even chided the mainstream media when they fall short of basic standards of propriety or professionalism. [Here is a recent example, "STOMPED", where STOMP apparently stole a photo which did not belong to it.]

Yet, in recent times, the call for regulating the Internet and to rein in such behaviour has grown louder from the government and members of the ruling party, even as they ignore the fact that in that same period, the mainstream media and their affiliates have degenerated into and engaged in worse behaviour – faking a story about MRT doors, using a picture of Muslims in traditional attire taken on Hari Raya for a story on drug addiction, repeatedly sensationalising “news” about foreigners with bad behaviour, etc. Even members of the ruling party have engaged in racist postings and vile behaviour online which its MPs seem to have conveniently ignored. [See here for how SPH's STOMP stokes xenophobic feelings: "STOMP - a cesspool of disgrace to citizen journalism")

But to continue to point fingers at each other is an exercise in futility. Yet, to impose even more regulations would be missing the woods for the trees. The backlash will be that more online practitioners will be more willing to ignore what would be seen as unfair rules for the alternative media, compared to the rules for the mainstream media. An example of such an unfair and discriminatory legislation is allowing the (registered) mainstream media – which is government-controlled - to publish election reports on Cooling-off Day but banning everyone else, including the alternative media, from doing so. Such biased and self-serving legislations can only inspire even more sentiments against the government and the ruling party.

This desperate need of the government to change behaviour seems to be borne out of its desire for things to be neat, prim and proper, set in uniform boxes, stacked up and labelled conveniently, for easy identification and control. Such expectations are, however, the antithesis of what the Internet is all about – a space for the robust and untidy exchange of views, the contestation of opinions, a level field where no one is master or servant, where mere mortals mingle on the same plain as higher mortals. And yes, where emotions can run high and voices can be shrill and unreasonable.

And as in the “real” offline world, there will be those who flout what is “acceptable” societal norms and decorum online. Such things are to be expected – and should be left alone unless real harm is caused.

But let’s be honest with ourselves in the discussion and debate on public discourse, whether online or offline – be honest that the mainstream media need to be freed up, to face real competition in order for it to raise its falling standards, and not – as MP Baey recently did – bury our heads in the sand and praise it to the high heavens, even as it churns out slip-shod reports.

Our media freedom rating internationally has not consistently been in the doldrums for no reason.

And in that honesty in discourse, let us also acknowledge that the Internet – and netizens, commentators, and bloggers – have done good things as well, such as exposing wrongdoings, and raising awareness of various issues, issues which the mainstream media avoid or have avoided for the longest time.

The alternative media space is not squeaky clean (why should it be?). Neither is the mainstream media of the highest standards or quality. To pit one against the other, or to heap praises on one and demonise the other is not going to do anyone any good.

What we should be looking at and asking ourselves is how we can raise standards for both sides without resorting to the anachronistic idea of tightening the noose further through regulation or legislation.

Maybe then we will, in the words of Associate Professor Cherian George, “finally wake up to the idea that the Internet contains all the wonder and weirdness of the world, and we’ll stop reacting to the less pleasant stuff as if it is the end of human civilisation.”