COMMENT
On 1 February, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong posted the
following on his Facebook
page:
“Fully agree with Khaw Boon Wan's explanation that a 6.9m
population is not a target, but just a worst case, aggressive
scenario that we must prepare for. We need to plan consciously and
responsibly for the future, so Singaporeans continue to enjoy a
good quality of life, and Singapore continues to thrive. – LHL”
It so happened I was online at the same time the PM was posting
that remark, and I responded almost immediately, my comment being
the first one in response to his. This was what I wrote:
“In 1991, the Concept Plan's "planning scenario" was 4 million
people. In the 2011 Concept Plan's "planning scenario", it was 5.5
million. Now, this 2013
White Paper has a "planning scenario" or "worst-case
scenario" of 6.9 million. After having reached the first two
"planning scenario" figures, you can understand why S'poreans see
this "6.9 million" as a target, and not just as a "planning
scenario". There is a disconnect between Govt and the people here.
And it is not the fault of the people.”
(PM Lee's Facebook page)
The government has tried to explain the 6.9 million figure and
assure Singaporeans that it
is only a planning parameter, a “worst-case scenario”, that
it’s not a target which the government is working towards.
But the damage has already been done. Singaporeans will only –
mostly – remember the figure “6.9 million” as the main message of
this White Paper. And truth be told,Singaporeans
are not wrong to view the figure with cynicism and skepticism,
given how past numbers were also breached.
It is quite ironic that PM Lee had, after the general election of
2011, urged his government officials to focus on and improve on the
way they communicate with the public, to better explain policy
decisions so that Singaporeans will understand better why the
government does certain things. It is ironic because the White
Paper itself fell far short of achieving this. Instead, it
attracted derision and criticism from various quarters of the
public. Even several of the PAP’s own MPs failed to fully support
it.
Some slammed the Paper for its lack of clarity on the impact on the
environment, for example. PAP MP Denise
Phua criticised it as follows:
It gives the perception of offering
a shared vision of Singapore when it is not.
It offers little other lifestyle choice to Singaporeans except that
of an urbanized setting.
It is the outcome of forms of engagement such as town halls and
traditional meetings that do not cover deeper sparring of ideas and
options.
Others ridiculed the lack of rigour in the paper itself. This was
shown up by the two amendments made to the Paper: one to remove the
wordings “population policy”, and the other to remove the word
“nursing” from the footnotes which had included nursing as a
“low-skilled” job. It caused unhappiness among nurses here, and
prompted the President of the Singapore Nursing Association to
write a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health
Minister. Various economists also slammed the Paper for its lack of
references and substantiation on various claims and points
made.
In brief, the Paper was a shambles.
For a document as important as this, a roadmap for a nation no
less, it is appalling to see how the government fumbled right from
the get go to the eventual vote itself – with the most critical PAP
MP,Inderjit
Singh, effectively abstaining from the vote when he was absent
from the House during the poll. [There were, according to news
reports, 8 MPs who were absent during the vote.]
There are many lessons for the government (and the PAP) in this
episode, and I am sure the party will conduct its own internal
assessment.
What is of more importance, and what should concern the government
more, is the question of trust among the people. Some have said, in
private, that they are concerned that the government which
professes to let in more foreigners to further and artificially
inflate our population, is one which can’t even get a White Paper
done right. Or at the very least, communicate its message
effectively and clearly.
Such remarks are not facetious. As the PAP government once said of
opposition members: if you can’t get the small things right, how
are you going to do the big things? And if you are unable to carry
the ground with you, especially on something as momentous as
increasing the population, how are you going to have the moral
authority to lead? And without such moral authority, how are you
going to hold together what would be a significantly more diverse
society – a politically and culturally different societal make-up
in the years ahead?
Singaporeans are anxious, seeing how the government has been unable
to deal with current problems the last few years, notably that of
public transport, public housing, and an income divide. Although
there are signs that it is getting a handle on things in these
areas, the challenges going forward are quite different and
Singaporeans are rightly concerned.
Having lived through the increase and then the squeeze (and not
just in the physical sense) of a larger population the last few
years, Singaporeans are naturally skeptical when the same
government tells them “not to worry”. The daily experiences of each
Singaporean tells him or her that life in Singapore has changed,
and not necessarily for the better.
So, to put it simply, Singaporeans are asking of the PAP
government: do you really know what you are doing?
This, more than anything else, is what the PAP government has to
reassure Singaporeans of, that it knows what it is doing, that it
can – to paraphrase the words of then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong
in 2003 – “show
[Singaporeans] the way out of the gloomy valley, and up into the
sunny highlands.”
And it must start by first showing that it can get the small things
right.
