20161219 WP unable to expose the Population White Paper sham? (5)

From: pipakh
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 1:05 PM
Cc: ANSON ; <a title=”wongcheokwan ; CUE ; <a title=”gerald.giam ; HARRY ; <a title=”ken_dxb ; JAYA ; <a title=”john ; LAU ; <a title=”leon.perera ; MANSURA ; <a title=”mus ; RAVI ; <a title=”sdp ; SDP 1 ; <a title=”stanley93896999 ; TOC ; <a title=”andrew ; SYLVIA LIM ; <a title=”organising
Subject: 20161219 WP unable to expose the Population White Paper sham?

Dear Pritam Singh

The Population White Paper (PWP) is a sham and everybody knows that, including the PAP.

The 6.9 million target is probably the minimum headcount required to achieve PAP’s desired outcome, without which the economy will start to go into a tailspin. No country has adopted PAP’s simplistic economic growth model for obvious reasons, only monkeys would.

Singapore’s infrastructures were never designed for the current population. As a result, they have been breaking down like clockwork.

25 years ago, PAP planned for a 4 million population by 2031 at the earliest but suka suka increased this to 6.9 million in 2013. Are we not courting trouble? MRT tracks constructed in the early 1980s did not factor in the current passenger loading, what more 6.9 million? Similarly for roads which are being expanded in every corner of our country, construction of hospitals, residential housing, etc, isn’t PAP trying to play catch up with a plan which had not existed?

The WP could not have been unaware of the shortcuts taken by PAP to drive economic growth which now requires the support of PWP target population.

Will it be a 10 million target population after 6.9 million? Where is integration with foreigners taking place? At PAP-organised events, MPs’ homes or the Istana?

I have corresponded with NPTD and it does not even keep track of the immigration policy, ie relevant immigration/population statistics are non existent. Do you or Parliament know for certain whether new citizens have helped to increase our low TFR or are they actually exacerbating the ageing population issue?

How do you represent your constituents when you are unsure of a positive policy outcome?

The issues of low TFR, baby boomers’ retirement and ageing population were known to the government decades ago but the planning seems to have started in 2013 or a few years earlier. Why have funds not been set aside since 2 decades ago? If our CPF scheme has been such a success, why is there an issue of shortfall?

Funds channeled into Temasek and GIC for investments was partly in anticipation of an ageing rainy day. But when that day finally arrived, why did PAP turn around and tell us the only solution is to increase the population to mitigate the issue of old age support ratio?

An indication of all that’s gone wrong with our immigration policy – the number of PRs being thrown away like used tissue paper since 2011. From the chart below, more than 10,000 foreigners have been giving up their permanent residency status annually since 2011. (About 29000 new PRs approved annually, less than 19000 PRs convert to new citizens.)

Is Singapore PR a piece of used tissue paper?

Singapore requires an intake of about 30,000 PRs because more than 10,000 are leaving permanently every year? What’s happening?

Let’s be honest with ourselves – most foreigners are here only for the money and nothing else. It’s unlike our forefathers who came here to slog and contributed to nation building. It’s really an insult to compare the present crop of foreigners with our forefathers.

As for the age profile of new citizens, 47% are aged above 30 years old with 20% above 40 years old.

20% of “new citizens” are are in fact quite old.


What’s the ratio of new female citizens who:
– Do not have any child?
– Have only 1 child?
– Have 2 or more children?

With so many unanswered questions, how do we know whether new citizens aren’t in fact lowering our TFR?

WP members are more intelligent than ordinary citizens like me but you seem reluctant to expose the PWP sham. Isn’t PAP’s argument resting on quicksand?

Being an elected MP is not about making eloquent speeches in Parliament or issuing statements which have little or no impact on flawed policies.

The display of public outrage got off to a good start with 4000 attendees at a Hong Lim Park PWP protest rally in February 2013. Throughout the years, and more PWP protest rallies, where was WP’s voice?

The PWP issue should be rekindled and the momentum at Hong Lim Park rebuilt. Don’t waste your time debating PAP in Parliament when a foregone conclusion is confirmed.

Issues should not be allowed to be framed or reframed by PAP or MSM. WP has the resources, support of right-thinking citizens and social media. Together, we should frame the issue in the right perspective and not allow PAP to take our country over the cliff.

Elected MPs are not lacking resources. It’s about time you find your voice.


Phillip Ang

This entry was posted in WP. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to 20161219 WP unable to expose the Population White Paper sham? (5)

  1. maybe says:

    very sharp questions. WP better wake up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s