Dynamic Population For A Sustainable Singapore

It was definitely a home run for Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim of the Workers’ Party (WP). Straight off the bat, she took the words right out of our mouths when she reminded the House, “It is not just about population. It is about nationhood, the meaning of being Singaporean, how we want to face the future as a country. It is about reclaiming back Singapore.” At machine-gun rate, the soundbytes kept coming, shaving inches off the growing nose of Pinnochio Teo:

“55% is too close to the all important threshold of 50% majority.”
“The roadmap proposed in the White Paper will further dilute our national identity.”
“Indigenous Singaporeans feel under siege.” 
“for the Singapore core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, worldview, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family.”
“new citizens see Singapore through through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change.”

If the cabinet had not been dominated by the traitorous turncoats, Lim would have received a standing ovation for the pièce de résistance: The government has gotten its priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, it should be “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”.

Quoting population expert, Frederick Meyerson, she pointed out that immigration is “essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations”. Her party opposes the Population White paper because its road map will dilute national identity and shrink the ranks of born-and-bred Singaporeans to a minority. As a Eurasian, Christopher de Souza must have felt this was a bit too close to home. His own race has been thinned over the years, a pale shadow of the glory days of the likes of David Marshall and E.W. Barker.

Another point Ms Lim brought up is that immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. She asked the obvious question, “Who will support them when they grow old?" By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve our population needs through improving TFR, but instead another White Paper may be introduced to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants. She only missed the bit that most immigrants also bring in aged parents, which makes mockery of the dubious claim that newcomers "refresh" the age profile.

Isn't it nice to have our heart felt thoughts articulated in parliament for a change?