Connect with us

Politics

’10 mil population’ debacle: SDP questions why former DPM Heng did not refute ST report at the time it was published

Published

on

CORRECTION NOTICE: This article contains a false statement of fact. For the correct facts, click here: www.gov.sg/article/factually040720a

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) on Friday evening (3 July) questioned why former Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat did not raise issues with a report by The Straits Times, in which the latter was quoted as having cited a former master planner of the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore on the prospect of a 10 million population in Singapore.

Speaking at a ministerial dialogue at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) on 28 March last year, the People’s Action Party (PAP) First Assistant Secretary-General was reported by ST as having referred to Liu Thai Ker who mentioned in 2014 that Singapore should plan for 10 million people for it to remain sustainable in the long term.

This is in spite of Singapore’s population density not being as excessive as some other cities.

Mr Heng reportedly said — on the estimated population of 6.9 million by 2030 as set out in the 2013 Population White Paper — that the figure extends beyond how densely populated Singapore would be, and that the social space is just as important.

Based on the above, the SDP reiterated its stance that it did not come up with the ’10 million population’ idea.

“Did Mr Heng refute and correct the report at the time it was published? If not, he can hardly accuse the SDP of making a false claim now?” said SDP.

SDP also referred to a letter penned by an ST reader in 2018, who was concerned about the population figures cited by Housing and Development Board chief executive Cheong Koon Hean in a lecture.

Dr Cheong estimated that Singapore’s population density will increase from 11,000 people per sq km to 13,700 people per sq km between now and 2030.

“Given our land area, this means that our population would go up to nearly 10 million by 2030,” SDP asserted.

SDP highlighted that Dr Cheong “refused to answer” Ravi Philemon — a Red Dot United Party co-founder and Jurong GRC candidate — on her planning principle behind the higher population density projection.

Former GIC chief economist and adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Yeoh Lam Keong, according to SDP, has also previously criticised Dr Liu’s “views on planning for a 10mn population for Singapore” in 2018.

SDP also pointed out that Mr Yeoh last year had subsequently expressed disappointment “that Minister Heng, who I have much respect for as an economist and should know better, so uncritically cites this poorly reasoned view based on bad, outdated economic policy that implies a return to excessive immigration that has created so many problems over the last 2 decades”.

As recently as Thursday, said SDP, Mr Yeoh argued that “it can reasonably be inferred from the ST article below that DPM Heng Swee Keat at his talk on March 2019 was at least open and sympathetic to an eventual 10 million population in Singapore”.

Mr Yeoh added that “it is entirely reasonable for Dr Chee to ask him to clarify again publicly and give reassurance of the government’s policy and resolve not to allow such a 10 mln policy outcome given DPM Heng’s recent reported glib statements and underlying economic trends”.

Mr Yeoh expressed apprehension on how “this shows both Minister Vivian and DPM Heng underestimate the policy and concrete policy measures eg clear immigration quotas and constant policy resolve needed to prevent us creeping towards such an inimical population scenario over the long term [sic]”.

“Given the above, there is disquiet among the public that Singapore may, indeed, be moving towards a 10 million population,” said SDP.

SDP stood firm with its stance that it has achieved its ‘1N’ or ‘One No’ goal in its GE 2020 campaign, which is to reject the idea of a 10 million population in Singapore.

“We are gratified that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan categorically said at the political debate on 1 July 2020 that the PAP will not increase the population to 10 million or even 6.9 million.

“As far as our ‘NO to a 10-million population’ in our 4Y1N campaign is concerned, it is mission accomplished. This is the kind of opposition that we strive to be, one that keeps the PAP in check.

“We now ask voters to get us into parliament to ensure that the PAP does not change its mind and renege on its promise,” SDP concluded.

Mr Heng, however, told the media after his walkabout at Blk 216 Bedok North St 1 Market and Food Centre on Friday that the SDP had erected “a bogeyman” only to “declare success”.

“I personally feel all along that integrity is very important … The reason why so many of our businesses have been doing well overseas is that Singaporeans are known to have integrity, so we must keep honesty and integrity in our system. And we must expect that of all candidates,” he said.

Responding to queries on why he had chosen to address SDP’s claim now, Mr Heng said: “What is very important is for Singaporeans to judge whether you are saying something serious, or you are just spreading statements like this with no basis whatsoever.”

“We must be sincere and honest in seeking to serve our people. The country is facing major challenges ahead. So let’s not get distracted, let’s focus on the key issues at hand. Let’s see how we can create a better life for all Singaporeans,” he added.

Background on the ’10 million population’ fiasco

The debacle began after SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan mentioned in a political debate by CNA on Wednesday that Mr Heng was “toying with the idea” of increasing Singapore’s population to 10 million people.

“And over and above all this, Mr Heng Swee Keat then comes up to say, in an interview, toys with the idea of bringing our population up to 10 million,” said Dr Chee.

He added that Singaporeans are “deadly worried about this proposal”, before subsequently questioning PAP’s Vivian Balakrishnan: “Will you categorically tell Singaporeans right now that your party has no intention of raising our population to 10 million by continuing to bring in foreigners—especially foreign PMETs—into Singapore to compete with our PMETs for jobs?”

Dr Balakrishnan dismissed Dr Chee’s point as a “false statement” and accused the latter of raising a “false strawman”.

A day later, Mr Heng denied mentioning that Singapore intends to increase its population to 10 million people.

“As the Straits Times clarified this morning, I did not say that Singapore should plan to increase its population to 10 million people, nor did I mention the figure,” he wrote in a Facebook post yesterday.

Mr Heng added that he did mention former chief planner Liu Thai Ker –- who publicly said that Singapore should go for a higher number of population –- at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Student Union Ministerial Forum in 2019.

“Far from endorsing this, I had explained that our population size was not just about physical space, but also about social space and how we can preserve a sense of togetherness,” he asserted.

Mr Heng said that the Government has “never proposed or targeted” to increase the country’s population to 10 million.

“And if we look at today’s situation, our population is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030,” he remarked.

Continue Reading
46 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
46 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population

SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan criticised Ho Ching’s claim that Singapore could support a population of 8 to 10 million through effective city planning. He expressed scepticism, citing adverse effects like rising living costs and mental health issues. Dr Chee argued that smaller populations can thrive, referencing Scandinavian countries that excelled internationally and produced Nobel laureates.

Published

on

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), slammed Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s spouse, Ho Ching, for her assertion that Singapore could accommodate 8 to 10 million people with proper city planning and land reclamation.

In a video message published on 1 October, Dr Chee expressed strong scepticism regarding the narrative of increasing the population, highlighting that the current surge past the 6 million mark had been largely driven by the influx of foreigners, which led to several adverse consequences.

He further highlighted that smaller populations were not inherently negative, drawing examples from some Scandinavian countries that had flourished on the international stage despite their smaller populations and had even produced Nobel Prize laureates.

Ho Ching expressed confidence that with proper city planning, Singapore could accommodate up to 8-10 million people

Last Friday (27 September), in a Facebook post, Madam Ho, who was also the former CEO of Temasek Holdings, highlighted the growing demand for caregivers as the population aged and the need for workers to sustain sectors like construction and engineering, particularly as the workforce shrank due to lower birth rates.

“As we have less children, we need more people from elsewhere to join us to keep this city functioning, from repairing train tracks through the night to serving patients in hospitals through the night. ”

Dr Chee Highlights Risks of Population Growth

In response, Dr Chee recalled his experience of being reprimanded by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan during the last General Election for raising concerns about the implications of a rapidly growing population.

He questioned why Madam Ho, who shared similar views, had not faced the same scrutiny.

In his video, Dr Chee articulated several concerns regarding the proposed increase in population, highlighting the potential negative impacts, including increased demand for food, housing, and transportation, which would result in a significant rise in living costs.

With a larger population, Dr Chee pointed out that more flats, roads, hospitals, and public transportation would need to be constructed, which would ultimately require higher taxes and fees to maintain the necessary infrastructure.

The SDP leader emphasized that an influx of residents would intensify competition for jobs, exerting downward pressure on wages and potentially leading to higher rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Dr Chee further expressed concern over the environmental degradation that would accompany population growth, citing the recent clearing of forests for housing and industrial developments, including Tengah and Kranji Forests.

Dr Chee questioned the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with a growing population, referencing the persistent issues with the MRT system, including breakdowns and safety hazards.

He highlighted the toll that congestion and overpopulation take on the mental health of Singaporeans, noting a rise in reported mental health challenges.

“All this while the ministers live in secluded and luxurious bunglows and villas, far from the madding crowd which we are subjected to every single day.”

“So, when Ho Ching says that we can accommodate up to 10 million people, I’d like to ask her, where and what type of house she lives in?”

Dr Chee Argues for Innovative Economic Solutions Over Traditional Urban Expansion

Regarding the ruling government’s persistent push to increase Singapore’s population to what he considered “unhealthy levels,” Dr Chee suggested that the PAP lacked viable alternatives for fostering economic growth.

He implied that the government resorted to traditional methods of expansion, such as construction and urban development.

He highlighted that the government is fixated on physically expanding the city—“digging, pouring concrete, and erecting structures”—to sustain GDP growth.

This approach, he argued, creates an illusion that Singapore remains a productive economic hub, despite potential downsides.

Dr Chee Advocates for the Value of Smaller Populations: Cites Political Freedom as Key to Innovation and Success

Dr Chee further contended that a smaller population did not necessarily hinder a nation’s success.

He cited several Scandinavian countries and Taiwan, emphasising their global brands and innovations despite their relatively small populations.

Dr Chee connected the success of these nations to their political freedoms, arguing that the ability to think and express oneself freely fostered innovation and societal progress.

He contrasted this with Singapore, where he claimed that the government controlled media and stifled freedom of expression.

He criticised the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) for its centralised control and for limiting the potential of Singaporeans. Dr Chee used the metaphor of a “grotesque monkey” clinging to the nation, suggesting that the PAP hindered progress and growth.

Dr Chee emphasised that the quality of a population—its talent, energy, and potential—was far more important than its size.

He suggested that Singapore possessed the necessary attributes to succeed on a global scale but was held back by the current political landscape.

He urged Singaporeans to engage in critical thinking rather than passively accepting government narratives.

Dr Chee advocated for a more mature and sophisticated approach to governance and civic engagement, encouraging citizens to take an active role in shaping their society.

Continue Reading

Court Cases

PSP seeks greater clarity from AGC on prosecutorial decisions against ex-minister Iswaran

Following former Transport Minister Iswaran’s sentencing to 12 months in jail on 3 October, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) issued a statement expressing its anticipation for clarity from the Attorney-General’s Chambers regarding prosecutorial decisions, given the high public interest. On 24 September, the AGC cited litigation risks in amending Iswaran’s charges but affirmed the case’s merit.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Following the sentencing of former Transport Minister Iswaran to 12 months in jail by Singapore’s court, the alternative party Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has issued a statement expressing concern over the ruling.

In a statement released at noon on 3 October, Ms Hazel Poa, Secretary-General of the PSP, noted that Mr Iswaran, who is also a former Member of Parliament from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), was sentenced for four counts of obtaining gifts as a public servant under Section 165 of the Penal Code 1871, and one count of obstructing justice under Section 204A of the same code.

Ms Poa, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, stated that, given the high level of public interest in this case, the PSP looks forward to receiving greater clarity from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) regarding its prosecutorial decisions at the appropriate juncture.

On the morning of 3 October, the court granted Iswaran’s request to surrender himself at 4 p.m. on 7 October to begin serving his sentence.

However, his lead lawyer, Davinder Singh, indicated that the start of the sentence could be delayed depending on “instructions,” hinting at the possibility of an appeal.

Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, while holding public office.

These gifts, which included private flights and other benefits, were worth over S$400,000 in total.

The 35 charges against Iswaran were amended by the prosecution on 24 September from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their official duties.

The court also took into account Iswaran’s admission of obstructing the course of justice, for which he had repaid over S$5,000 to Singapore GP for a business-class flight he had taken at Ong’s expense.

The remaining 30 charges were taken into account during sentencing.

Iswaran had originally faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.

The charges were amended from two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to offences under Section 165.

This section, unlike Section 8 of the PCA, does not include a presumption of corruption, which would have placed the burden on the accused to prove the gifts were not given as inducements.

The AGC in an explanation cited substantial evidentiary risks in proving the original corruption charges, which involved  Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng.

The AGC noted that proving the original corruption charges under PCA would have been difficult due to the involvement of both Iswaran and Ong as primary parties.

Both would have had to implicate themselves to establish corrupt intent.

The AGC explained that “there are two primary parties to the transactions, and both would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.” This made securing a conviction for corruption highly uncertain.

In light of these risks, the AGC amended the charges to offenses under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a lower evidentiary threshold and a reduced maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

According to AGC, the amendment was made to ensure a fair and just outcome while considering public interest.

Continue Reading

Trending